Banshee

Well the way to defeat it IMHO is 1 234/1's or 2 251/9's , they are invulnerable to anything the humber can throw at it, and if he brings up armor to counter then you have the battle you were waiting for.. if you have 2 234/1's even better.. a mobile 20mm (more the merrier) will defeat this tactic.. heck forward deployed schrecks will have no problem dealing with these things, if there is any sort of cover just shoot and run. if there is little cover than you have to go with the mobile 20mm's and having 1 or 2 isnt gamey

I use large calibre artillery in offensive situations to pound the places in my path which I think would most likely hold me up at the greatest cost. So in essensce I pay my arty points out to guarantee the most painless ride to the back of the map. I found this highly useful in situations where LOS is more limited , i.e. medium hills or larger, or very heavy trees. This way I can concentrate my firepower in a small frontage and only exposing a small percentage of my troops. Usually the rest of my troops are held back in reserve to widen my breakthrough after I reach my initial objective.

Oh btw the 30 cal the Marine was using was WATER cooled, so much heavier than the air cooled one I had seen.

Rob/1 under a different name, still has the same spelling problems Dyslexics of the world.... UNTIE!

Actually if you watch History Channel enough you will see guys using the 30 cal with a shoulder strap and a ammo bag (the belt feeds from the bag) on their hip. I can remember 3 different video scenes in my head (most dramatic of which was in Cologne a guy crossing the street laying down suppressing fire on the run.. you could see the inaccuracy from the tracers, but it would prolly make you duck). So it was done.

BTS.. HIRE HIM

We'll I don't know about you, but I would much rather be attacked or assaulted then probed. But maybe that was just because of the incident with the gym coach in junior high school... *crickets chirping* [ 04-26-2001: Message edited by: Banshee ]

The AI also never buys TRP's for the defensive side. And about 1 in 10 times the AI will leave 100-200 points just idle (not purchase anything) (in v1.12). There are a few bugs in the purchasing AI, I never noticed the pershing one. Do 10 5000 point battles with May 1945 time setting and see if the Americans get a pershing, if you really want to see if it is a bug, generate 50 games.

I'm just glad to be here, Try to take it one post at a time. Do what I can to help the ball club!

When playing the British side. 1) When observing from a hilltop I spotted what identified as "SP Gun?". What was particularly interesting about it , it looked like a Marder III , but the gun facing backwards, and the gun was able to rotate on a turret. It was fun to watch it move the gun and fire. Now in reality it was a 37mm on the back of a truck (cant remember the designation sdkfw 71 or something like that). But what is most interesting that the texture and model for this backward firing gun (when looking at the info screen it said "Tank Destroyer", with a 75mm gun) is in the game. Anyone else every seen this TD? This is the first time I've seen something misidentified as a vehicle that isnt in the game. If you think of a MarderIII with a gun facing like an Archer, but with the ability to rotate the top turret like a M-10, that will be right on. 2) Reinforcements came in, a Humber SC was stuck in a light building and couldnt be moved.But not a big deal.

Just wondering what people currently have games with Kiwi Joe?

Dont know if this has been mentioned before but about 15-20% of the time when I have a unit with an AMBUSH command and I have to cancel the command to go move to another area for a counter attack. This unit will NOT fire at other spotted units in range. The only way they will fire is if I give them specific targetting instructions. But if the target they are firing at goes out of LOS (even for a second), those units wont pick up firing again, and wont acquire a new target. Needless to say you take quite a lot of casualties between turns and the unit basically is useless in a counterattack (since all the enemies it will find are mostly in close in, sudden LOS situation, which because this unit wont fire, means the whole unit gets pasted by one squad or some silly thing). Oh I should define what I mean by a unit, any group of people under command of one commander. I have two saved files (one of 2 different group of machine guns, and one of a platoon) not firing. I havent sent them in because my home internet access is hosed because of the Northpoint shutdown. I was wondering if A) this is a known problem anything is being done about it. It is a frustrating bug since in small maps you can have up to 1/3 of your defending force NOT firing. Unit Experience level doesnt seem to matter, i've only seen it happen with infantry units , not guns or afv's. Any thoughts? p.s. if one sumgun goes and starts spouting how X% of people in firefights in WW2 didnt fire guns etc etc, blah blah, i'll cap him! This is a bug and not designed behavior.

Kind of a side point to what Chup is saying has anyone received Gerbisjager troops through computer picks, I can't say I ever have, is this another situation like not getting TRP's when computer buys or am I imagining this one?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MrSpkr: Oh geez - I misread your position entirely (that's what happens when you start off with a Guiness right away)! Withdraw former objections - you are pretty much on the money! MrSpkr (hiccup)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> lol it is a loooong thread, I am just wishing I had a Guiness too!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MrSpkr: Umm - I don't think that is entirely accurate or the point. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> A) what part of the point did I miss? the person I was replying to said that he though advancing in the open was a bad thing. I explained how his perception was inaccurate since he was applying it to the scope of all of CM when he was talking purely of infantry tactics What was inaccurate? I think you mean the stuff below,to which I will respond . <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Monte Cassino was, I think, a different issue entirely. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Big huge mountain range which limited maneuverability and the inability (due to terrain) to bring armor to bear against enemy positions. How is this a different issue entirely. Terrain was key, even though LOS was not directly blocked (i.e. you could see the whole mountain), LOS to the direct german positions was blocked and/or out of range of direct fire. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> AI agree witht eh Normandy Hedgerow - however, the speed of our subsequent advance had as much to do with the German inability to reform the line as it did with the type of terrain. The germans in late July and August 1944 simply were in no shape to form an adequate defensive line once we stretched the length of the front with the Normandie breakout.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> When did we "break out"? When we got outside the restrictive terrain, thus making a cohesive defense much harder. The plains of france and germany (and the steppes of russia) make for fast advances. Defensive lines were usually attempted at places like river crossings , fixed fortifications (sigfried line), big cities (Aachen is a good example), and heavy forests if possible (Huertgen). Where terrain maximizes defenders advantages. My point still stands and is valid so I'm not sure what the issue is, The defender was out in the open, where our airpower, firepower, and maneuverability could be brought to bear. In close in terrain this is much more difficult. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> As to the Huertgen forest, keep in mind that many of these villages in the ofrest had large cleared areas on their outskirts for farming and grazing purposes. Certainly there was more cover than in, say, north-central France, but it was not wall to wall trees right up to the edge of the village. MrSpkr<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Even when we were able to get to the village of Huertgen (i may be wrong about the name of the first big village we took, I'll have to dig out my copy of bloody forest) our forces were driven back. The terrain was still limiting the ability to reinforce/resupply, ability to find and fix the enemy, etc. Remember we drove the germans out of the village , but were subsequently driven back (when WE were in the village). Thus my earlier point of saying villages are not suitable places to defend is still valid. The maximum amount of damage that was inflicted on us was IN the close terrain of the forest. So im still not seeing your issue with my comments. Edit: fixing many spelling errors lol, dont worry there is more! [ 04-13-2001: Message edited by: Banshee ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ADAman: Banshee wrote, "But the average, village map (even with heavy forest selected) is still far too open for a solid defense..." This seems to go against my conceptions of what one would want in the real world. I wasn't a ground grunt but in the infantry training I did have, attacking across open ground was not one of those tactics they recommended. Assuming Banshee's correct with what works in CM, this would seem an area that might be revisted by BTS some time down the road.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If you look at WW2 in europe, where were we held up the most? Places like Huertgen Forest, Normandy Hedgerows, Mount Cassino in italy, etc places where we had limited maneuver room, airpower was neutralized by terrain, LOS for artillery observation was limited by terrain, etc. When we had to go village to village across your standard german/French countryside, we did it pretty easily. All of our firepower could be brought to bear. I think CM models this accurately. What you are thinking of from an infantry point of view is that you are supposed to advance under as much cover and concealment as possible. But you want as much supporting weapons and overwatch as you can get, which is what the open maps give you.

on village and city maps you would think it would be easy to put a big ole flag smack dab in the middle of the town and that would be realistic in the general case. Most US troops daily objectives were the next little village down the road. I think for other maps you just pick the highest ground on the defenders side and put a big ole flag there too (hopefully there is some cover!). I would rather have more flags stacked deeper, than CM's way of stacking more flags , wider. Like I said I try to ignore the flags as much as possible, usually leaving 50% or so uncovered , and the other 50% just happen to be in the terrain that I think is most suitable for my operations. p.s. I dont think further point reductions are the answer. p.s.s. Also I think it would help the average joe who lets the computer pick for both sides if the purchasing AI was smart enough to give you a TRP every once and awhile if u have an FO (or even an AT gun or mortar). Right now any person attacking when computer purchases KNOWS that TRP's aren't in the cards for the defender (BUG! hehe).

oh yeah, my other beef (not really I still play just think there needs to be a change) is the flags in CM. I think defense would be much more meaningful if flags were either gone OR there were much fewer. I ignore the flags as much as possible but honestly I know they influence my thinking. Ideally (IMHO!!) I think the defender would have his own objectives to defend (say Hill , and Attacker would have his objectives to take (Say Hill C). I wouldnt know the attackers objectives (yes I know about dynamic flags) and the attacker wouldnt know objectives. Sometimes the objectives would be the same (I would say probably 70-75% of the time) but sometimes they wouldnt. But then again I want deeper maps, a modified ambush command (see NScoot thread), and a modified menu system. I wont be getting any of those either!

Well I think the average terrain on the average CM map is highly favorable to attacker. Try heavy forest, rural map and I bet you will fair better. But the average, village map (even with heavy forest selected) is still far too open for a solid defense unless the lay of the terrain (i.e. being able to get reverse slope positions) is just right. If the person you are playing insists on village maps, then insist on fog (to limit visibility) or rain/snow(to limit afv maneuverability) to bring it back in balance. Wide open (long range LOS) = good for the attacker, close in = good for the defender. Challene the same opponents again to a battle Rural, Heavy trees, large mountains, any weather, I bet you do better.

I disagree with Mattias, but that is just me . I for example would love you use the area fire command a little more to supress tree line (blind firing when there is no target), while my men run to it. This supressive fire currently would take out my own men because the tank will stupidly fire round after round until the end of the turn, even if your own men are present (and in full view of the tank beforehand, i.e. on the rush on the way in, no way to be mistaken for the enemy then). "Supporting/Supressive" fire is very difficult to achieve right now.

Just wondering if anyone knows why the ambush command is limited to 300 meters, this may make sense for infantry, but makes no sense for armor and guns. It would make sense maybe to not give them as much of a first chance hit bonus at longer ranges, but the ability to set a point at which you want to ambush shouldnt be limited by range.

weird, I live in Kalifornia too. Sometimes some IP addresses resolve (not resolve in the DNS way, but in the locality way) to foreign countries even when they are local. We have a block of IP addresses assigned to us that everyone thought were in Beirut, Lebanon. So we could never download some of heavier encryption packages. I think this is the same thing that is going on here.

http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1131670647 I think the diagram showing the inclination for plunging fire is just awesome.

Here is my idea (from another thread) on implementing this and other fixes (the menu system is the meat of the idea, you can skip all the blathering): <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys: So the answer for too much micromanagement is to add more micromanagement? I've come across this argument before, and the only way I can think of for its proponents to avoid its obvious illogic is that they are blinded by being heavily prejudiced in favor of micromanagement to begin with. But that is contrary to the spirit and philosophy that CM is based on. It seems to me that the only solution consistent with CM's purpose is to improve the AI so that it doesn't do egregiously stupid things. For instance, a lot of different problems would be solved if the AI had an instruction along the lines of: "If there is a known high-threat or high-value target in the vicinity, withhold fire on lower threat or lower value targets". Granted that might not be exactly a snap to program and debug, but something along those lines would go a long way towards answering a number of complaints. A lot of other complaints, like the hull down question should be handled in the same way. Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't agree that the better AI will preclude the need for micro-management. How do I tell the AI my strategy? I regularly use my AFV's as a screening force for my MLR, trying to seperate the enemy AFV's from the infantry . No AI in the world would know this is my strategy. Adding finer detailed commands would allow me to implement my tactics. IMHO what should be done is give finer detailed commands, but the default behavior would let the AI work it's magic. I envision a menu system exactly as it is set up now. Small exception you would see a little arrow next to the command which would give you other options (think of Start->Programs->Accessories->etc in windows, sorry mac im not sure how it works on your systems) Example menu item: AMBUSH->Infantry AFV's TARGET-> x number of rounds SMOKE->X number of rounds MOVE->Until Enemy is spotted Until Fired upon So I could click AMBUSH and it would be the default ambush behavior, or fine tune it for Infantry or AFV's. Too much micromanagement answer is not more micromanagement. AI deficiencies (both in game and ones where AI doesn't know your tactics (e.g. You can't "brief" the AI on what you want to do)) answer is more micromanagement. AI will never be very good (it is VERY hard to code) I have seen very few games where AI has been noteable. Plus it would be MUCH faster to write the above commands than a perfect the AI. The AI would still have to be modified to accomodate some changes (ex. A tank with Ambush->AFV command sees a zook coming within firing range might tend to break ambush command earlier, but a gun wouldnt) Also experience level would affect how well a unit follows your commands (adding to realism). You may micromanage the heck out of your units, doesn't mean they will do it right. I always wondered what BTS's thoughts on this type of stuff was.. maybe they will read this thread.

You won't always be able to get out of LOS in 60 seconds, but it is still a good kludge.