Basebal351

P.S. Is CM:AK a good game? Never been much of a fan of the desert myself... quite frankly I find it to be objectionably dry. But is it a fun enough game that someone like me would enjoy it?

I was an avid player of CMBO and CMBB back in the day. I remember regularly playing PBEM and eventually internet matches against other people and even winning probably a majority of the time. Well, I stopped playing at somepoint (2003 maybe?) and have recently returned. Suffice it to say, my skills have eroded. I fired up the Cracking the Egg scenario and was thoroughly trounced by the AI. My question is, what is it that I've forgotten how to do, and how may I relearn it? Did I simply play a particularly difficult scenario? I wasn't able to use my Russian assault guns because the Tigers took them out from a very long range. I didn't knock out a single enemy tank. How does one go about defeating the AI in this scenario? Also, I was hoping some folks could give me a couple of refreshers on tactics. How far forward should my infantry be in front of my tanks? How appropriate is it to fire smoke rounds/artillery? Is this something that should, for authenticity, be used sparingly? What formations are appropriate for infantry companies (ie. how to array, and what distance should separate the platoons)?? When moving a platoon or a company into close contact with the enemy, how much supporting fire is generally recommended? Oh, and when laying down a cover arc, does a unit fire on enemy units that come into that arc? I had mixed results with it during the scenario. Thanks for answering my questions, and if there any other hints or tips you all would care to share, I would be extremely appreciative.

Oh man, there was SO a thread on this a little while ago. It got weird. I hope it doesn't get like that now. And I won't tell you to search for it, because I don't personally believe in it myself. Never have, never will search. Thanks, Jim

Don't worry ntg84. You're not the only one experiencing this problem. I never seem to get a break in CM either. It seems that my opponents get all of the luck. Thanks, Jim

Hi! As far as women in CM2, I think it would be alright so long as their appearance would be extremely random, and extremely rare. But, then again, BTS didn't model black people in CM1. I think for them to model women, and not black people, would be discrimination, or something. Confused About Political Correctness, Jim

I see your point, but it doesn't tell the whole story of what kind of atrocious actions these partisans performed. Simple fact was, many of these partisans also stole from and killed their fellow Russians. How is that fighting for their country? Many of them were Soviets, fighting for their party. And in many cases, they were just as brutal, if not more so, than the invading German army. No heroism in that. I'd call them terrorists. Thanks, Jim

Darn!! That is a NICE pic!! Where did you get it from?? I would love to have it!! Thanks, Jim

Thanks for the bump. It's surprising that Jeff makes some good points, and there's still not too much logic, and/or evidence to disprove what he is saying. Tungsten DOES make a big difference, espescially now that there is a BUG, that makes it even MORE EFFECTIVE against the sloped armor of German tanks like the Panther! And if this proves anything, it's the fact that BTS isn't the FINAL word on CM, and the historical accuracty that they are trying to represent. They can just as easily make a mistake as any of us can!! And this tungsten issue just seems like too much of a crapshoot for me to take as 100% historical accuracy. They're saying that they're making a reasonable guess, and some of us are saying that we're making a reasonable guess that their reasonable guess is wrong. And because they're BTS, many people are willing to unflinchingly take what they say as correct, bar-none. Even if Shermans crews started out EVERY MORNING (any proof of that?) with 2 rounds of Tungsten, who's to say that they had those 2 rounds for EVERY single fight?? They could EASILY expend those rounds firing at a tank or two well BEFORE the main battle started, which is the part represented in CM. For tungsten rounds to be so prevalent, and so effective I would like to request a little factual evidence that they were used in such great abundance, and for EVERY battle that they participated in. Thanks, Jim

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Absolutely NOT! Do you have any idea how much fire a tank draws? Or attention? That's the worst place to be! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But, Michael, he was saying that it was a practiced tactic. And that they portrayed it in the movie very realistically. And really, I think if I were advancing down the middle of a street, those armor plates would be pretty valuable at protecting me from those nasty machine guns. And I think that if your sergeant had told you to walk behind a tank, you would have done it too! What I want to know is, what would have been a better way for the Germans to assualt the town, knowing that they have to actually go through it to reach the bridge? I've heard people say before that the Germans used bad tactics, but what exactly could they have done differently? They couldn't sit and wait there and trade shots at 30m, as I heard someone else saying. Besides, they had numerical superiority. They wanted to exploit that and take out the American soldiers before they recieved reinforcements. What should they have done differently to make the movie more "realistic"? I'd really like to see Spielberg do a movie with realistic tank and infantry combat. I think he could do a nice job with it. Thanks, Jim p.s. I don't really know how often that tactic was used, I just know that I've heard about it more than once on this forum.

Board Game: Axis and Allies Computer Game: Sid Meier s Getttysburg, and a month later, Combat Mission: Beyond Overlord. I know, I've been deprived. Thanks, Jim

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elijah Meeks: Oh come on people, there is no such thing as good or evil. Those are judgement calls made up to suit the times. One of the amazing things to remember is that before WWII, it was accepted practice to do just what the Nazis did. We Americans (And the British) neutered mentally handicapped people and eugenics was not a dirty word. Wholesale slaughter of people happened ALL THE TIME (Christians in Azerbaijan during WWI being an oft pointed to example). Racism was well established and scientificly backed up. Et cetera, et cetera. WWII made these things evil in popular opinion. It did this because the allies put together a campaign to sway public opinion just as surely as they put together a campaign to defeat the Axis. The result of this was a change in public opinion leading to the emancipation of India, the Civil Rights crusades of the US and the entire political correct movement. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Excellent post Elijah. That's a view that I, and a few others in my old history class held. It takes some advanced thinking to be able to be able to take a stance such as that one, and an ability to NOT just follow the popular concensus. Many people are all too willing to put force their morals and beliefs onto other people, and time periods. In my honest opinion, that is.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by von Lucke: And you'd have to have been here this time last year to be around before I showed up... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Again, I apologize for the misunderstandings we are apparently having, but I was referring to this thread. Not the board... Thanks, Jim

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by patboivin: This is an American game, though. I don't know if that played a part? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> LOL! Yeah, this game and forum does seem to take a bit of a "U-571" slant on things at times!! ------------------ "...you're just jealous that the UK didn't get to join the war before the Americans took Berlin. But, I WILL give credit to where credit is due. If it wasn't for America's almighty industry, we might not have been able to win the war single-handedly. You UK-landers would have been the first people we would have called, though, if we needed some help... or some more tea. We promise."

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rexford: CM slope effect for 76 HVAP vs 47mm armor at 60° is 2.1, U.S. test data results in 4.3 estimate. CM also shows HVAP slope multiplier changing with T/D, firing test data shows that it remains constant. Panther glacis resistance to 76 HVAP will be about twice what CM predicts, 55° slope effect for HVAP should be 3.3. This is something else that needs fixin'.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So, what you're saying is that Panthers are even awesomer??? That's all you had to say. No need for fancimication by datafying us all with numbers and whatnot. Simple slogans should do the trick... "Forget the Velocity and the Mass, Panthers Should Just Kick More A.." -Rexford ------------------ "...you're just jealous that the UK didn't get to join the war before the Americans took Berlin. But, I WILL give credit to where credit is due. If it wasn't for America's almighty industry, we might not have been able to win the war single-handedly. You UK-landers would have been the first people we would have called, though, if we needed some help... or some more tea. We promise."

And again, that's for HISTORICAL purposes ONLY. Anything dealing with a "balanced" game, between armor forces might need adjusting between the point values. Thanks, Jim

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by von Lucke: Basebal351: First you complain because you want to fight with ahistorical force pools<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hmmm? Hey buddy, when did I ever advocate fighting with "ahistorical force pools?" If you'd take the time to read my posts above, you'd see that I agree with the current numbers between armor, favoring the Allies. And I agreed with that disparity for the EXACT same reason you did. It appears that you're trying to pick an argument with someone who had the exact same point of view as you, before you even showed up. Thanks, Jim

But see, I think we're all making a mistake in singling out only one man, or one political party as "evil." Hitler and Stalin were products of their TIMES. Everything they did was influenced by their culture, upbringing, and the people around them. If you were Hitler, you would have done the exact same things he did. I know that sounds dumb, and perhaps overstating the obvious, but I'm a firm believer that people just don't suddenly become killers because they choose to, it can only be attributed to their surroundings and the other people of the time. The simple fact is, if Hitler was REALLY, and TRULY hated by the people of Germany, he couldn't have done ANY of the things he did. The odd, and somewhat disturbing, fact is that Hitler was idolized by millions of people. And it's from those people, who actually held many of the same beliefs as he did, that he attained his power and the ability to carry out the attrocious deeds that he did. One man alone can't be evil, he needs to get his power from somewhere, and that power comes from society and his supporters. Society breeds the hate, and it must be monitored more closely than any Hitler, or Stalin. Thanks, Jim

Interesting results Jeff, and I appreciate the time you put into looking up such a thing as that. Does anyone have data, or figures, on the average number of rounds of tungsten given out to tanks?? I certainly have no idea, but I'm sure there are many, more intelligent, people on this board who could enlighten me. I think I might have missed the tungsten discussion the first time around. Thanks, Jim

Dear Simon Fox, Perhaps I know you, but then again, perhaps I do not. I AM very confused on that point. But, what I am not confused about is my previous assertations regarding the use ahistorical use of tungsten. And how does this ahistorical use come about? From an overabundance one is to assume. I would REALLY like to know the actual numbers of tungsten rounds given out to tankers and used out on the field. From experience, I can tell you that some of the Allied tanks have QUITE A FEW rounds of the precious metal. There was some debate going on earlier, when BTS was going to increase the use of Tungsten, whether the Allied tanks should have been given less rounds of the stuff. Many believed that they should so long as they would use the rounds they had more often and more effectively. What is interesting to note, however, is that I've never been made aware as to any changes regarding the number of tungsten rounds available to Allied tanks. And nobody can tell me that the number of rounds these tanks have are beyond a reasonable doubt, the correct amount. I assume the number of rounds chosen for different tanks was another one of the times, albiet few times, where BTS hazarded a guess and hoped it worked out for gameplay. What I do know, that in all of the anecdotal stories I've seen, read, and heard from Allied tankers, they ALWAYS talk about outmanuevering the German heavies, laying down smoke for cover, or even tactifully retreating to hit the German tank from another angle at another time. Never ONCE have I heard an Allied gunner say that he "slammed home a tungsten round, and knocked out that sonofabith Tiger from 300m, right through the turret." It just wasn't as common as it is in CM, as are a LOT of tactics from the Allied and German players. And THAT'S why I say we end to bickering, and complaining, and changing of values and go back to the balanced days of old. They were so good then, before the tungsten and differing armor points in QB's. Which brings me to another point. In a QB where the Allies have more Armor points than the Germans, it's one thing for them to pick up 4 M3's, or M4's. That's a pretty balanced Quick Battle. It's quite another for them to pick up 3 M10 TD's, with 3-5 rounds of Tungsten apiece. The German player, with one Panther and a Stug III, would get torn apart. That's not balanced. At least with the 4 M3's, the Allied player would have to rely on good, historically sound tactics to win. Which is the way it REALLY was. And like someone else pointed out, let's not make concessions for one side just because the other side has an advantage in one area (the German tanks have bigger guns, so let's give lots of other advantages to American tanks). I liked my CM just fine, thank you. Please unfix BTS, or do somefink.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panther131: BTW, this is supposed to be for QB's not historical accuracy. I mean historical accuracy is part of it, but for QB, my impression is that they are for balanced play, while scenarios are where all the heavy historical aspects come in to it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yep, and if more Allied players played historically, there wouldn't be as many complaints, or changes made. Run and flanking tactics for the Shermans... Thanks, Jim

Good post, KiwiJoe. It's nice to see another primarily Allied player like myself admit that all of these benefits the Allies are recieving probably aren't in the best interests of Combat Mission or Allied players. The Germans aren't any more powerful, many Allied players just use improper, non-historical tactics against the German tanks by trying to go toe-to-toe with them. And THAT'S why so many Allied players CLAMORED for the tungsten. They wanted their Shermans to take out Tigers frontally at 300m!! Jeez... Thanks, Jim ------------------ "...you're just jealous that the UK didn't get to join the war before the Americans took Berlin. But, I WILL give credit to where credit is due. If it wasn't for America's almighty industry, we might not have been able to win the war single-handedly. You UK-landers would have been the first people we would have called, though, if we needed some help... or some more tea. We promise."

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Guy w/gun: Just can't make everyone happy ! Some people complain that the axis tanks cost to little for what they are, some complain that a 3 to 1 ally armor bonus is unfair....JEEZ!!!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Exactly. That's what I was saying. No matter what, you're going to have the hardcore Allied fanatics, (and yes some of you are!!) and the hardcore German fanatics (those who are picked on, and made fun of by the Allied fanatics). Both sides think their side is getting shafted, and deserve better means with which to do away with the other side. I say we eliminate complaining, and the changing of Allied or German capabilities just because a few people complain about it being unbalanced, or unfair. I think the game was fine before all of the latest changes, definitely fair to both sides so long as they fought historically. But, with some of the changes that have been made, mostly for the Allies for whatever reasons, there has been an increase in ahistorical play and results. An dinky M8 (heard it on another thread) *cringe* knocking out multiple KING TIGERS?!? Well, whatever. Allied players wanted increased tungsten use and Allied tank capabilities, so BTS gave them increased tungsten use and Allied tank capabilities. How historical was it for an M8 to knock out a King Tiger??? I'll leave that up to you all to decide. And trust me, if that was my M8 that knocked out the King Tiger, I think I would be embarrassed knowing that I got away with something in the game that by all means I wouldn't have in real-life. I think I would have surrendered the game, even. Many Allied-centric players, after recieving an ABUNDANT amount of tungsten and the increase in its' use, still want German tank's guns to be less effective, or their armor to be easier to penetrate. It appears that they want to have their cake and eat it too. German-centric players aren't at fault either. They want less tungsten use, and more effective guns. As we can all see, there is no way to please everybody. And I think a very happy medium was reached in the first release. Most things after that, besides historically-proven tweaks, only detracted from the original balance and historical data Steve and Charles originally came up with. I can even live with the penetration figures and the tungsten use in v 1.05 and the Beta, but no more please. And no more complaining from either side! Thanks, Jim

If someone would like to donate an actual working WW2 bazooka, American uniform, and the various equipment that accompanied the infantryman into battle, to me I would be more than happy to conduct tests on the matter . Send the aforementioned supplies care of: Basebal351 351 Baseball Lane Cold-as-hell, Illinois Thanks. Overnight shipping would be preferred. -Jim

Whew, for a minute there I thought that it might be because the Axis powers were being "slighted". I thought that it was blatant "Allied-bias" by BTS, in an attempt to screw-over the German player. Why would anyone play the German player if they've got 1/3 less armor points than the Allies?!? It just doesn't make for balanced play!! But, all kidding aside, I would assume that the Allies, historically, DID have more "armor" points in a sense. They had a ton more man and materiel than the Germans did. And, even in an engagement the size represented in Combat Mission, the Allies would probably have a greater number of tanks in proportion to men than the Germans. BTS gave us the option to simulate these greater numbers of Allied tanks by allowing the Allied player to use more of his/her (go Kitty!!) points to buy tanks. That's all in my honest opinion, though. I REALLY wish people complaining about Allied "inferiority" in Combat Mission would look at both sides of the issue before complaining. Thanks, Jim ------------------ "...you're just jealous that the UK didn't get to join the war before the Americans took Berlin. But, I WILL give credit to where credit is due. If it wasn't for America's almighty industry, we might not have been able to win the war single-handedly. You UK-landers would have been the first people we would have called, though, if we needed some help... or some more tea. We promise."

Alright, there are a lot of LONG posts in this thread, too much for me to read in one sitting. But, from what I have garnered here and elsewhere lately, is that people are trying to dispell the German "uber" myth of whatever. First of all, while I believe there was somewhat of an overstatement of German and German weapon capabilities made over the years in certain wargames, ALLIED soldiers themselves held, DURING WW2, some of the same beliefs and notions about German weapon superiority. What values do people think need changing? Do the German heavies need weakening? How far are we willing to go to change history to help these games become "balanced" for tournament play?? While trying to dispell the German "uber" myth, are we going to build up the Allies into a force they really weren't? For "tournament play's sake", are we going to let Sherman 75's go toe-to-toe with a Panther, or a Tiger?? There was a reason American tankers felt LET DOWN by the manufacturers, there was a REASON why they were afraid of most German tanks, espescially heavies. Their tanks were...gasp, INFERIOR!! That wasn't very balanced, now was it? What did they do when their shots started ricocheting off of the Tiger's frontal armor? Did they try to change the Tiger's armor value, or did they vow to "play" only as the Germans from then on? No, they developed the SAME tactics that have been recommended time and time again by intelligent people on this board. Flanking movements designed to catch the German tanks off guard, in the sides and rear. They used one of the only superiority factors the Allies held, STRENGTH in NUMBERS!! Your German opponent buys an "uber" Tiger, well surround that sonofabitch with a platoon of fast-moving Sherman 75's. Don't try to fight fire with fire by purchasing a disproportionate amount of Hellcats, or Jumbos for God's sake. And don't come crying to the message boards saying the Germans are too powerful. Steve and Charles, to the best of ANYBODY'S knowledge, got these armor penetration numbers RIGHT. And that's the only way to look at it. Nobody knows, beyond a reasonable doubt, the correct armor penetration numbers. But, what we do know through anecdotes AND tried-and-true armor penetration values, was that German armor, in MOST instances, was superior. The Allies weren't "slighted" in Combat Mission. That couldn't be further from the truth. The Allies were given footing on equal ground, and the people making and playing this game have gone the distance in trying to make the armor differences as historically accurate as possible, without skewing history in the process. And I say, well done. But, perhaps it's time for all of the Allied players using improper tactics to stop complaining about German "superiority." And think I'm a "German-only" player? That couldn't be further from the truth. I play the Americans 75% of the time, and actually find it easier than playing as the Germans. And, darn it all, I've made ANOTHER long post. D'oh! Thanks, Jim ------------------ "...you're just jealous that the UK didn't get to join the war before the Americans took Berlin. But, I WILL give credit to where credit is due. If it wasn't for America's almighty industry, we might not have been able to win the war single-handedly. You UK-landers would have been the first people we would have called, though, if we needed some help... or some more tea. We promise." [This message has been edited by Basebal351 (edited 01-15-2001).]