ParaBellum

"That's a crap game!! My Tiger got knocked out by some US tank! But the Tiger is SOOO good! Best tank in the world!!! How can it be destroyed???" "Well, my friend, a Tiger is not invulnerable. And if you charge headlong into the enemy just to get a flank shot from a Stuart, that's what we call`'reality'." "But why do my soldiers run back? I ordered them to charge that village!!" "Yeah, you ordered them to charge headlong into massed MG fire and got hit by arty on the way." "Oh, what's that??? I got hit by something I can't even see!! That's a bug!!" "Well, my friend, that's not a bug, it's just another part of what we call 'reality'. It's not easy to spot an AT guns hidden in woods firing its first shot." "And look at that! That's a BIG bug!! I ordered that Stuart-thing to engage that Panzer-thing and it just popped smoke and reversed!! BUG!" "Well my friend, the crew of your Stuart just decided by themself that engaging a King Tiger frontally is a bad decision, cursed your name and reversed as fast as the could. Another one of these strange things that happen in 'reality'". "Boah man, 'reality' sucks!" "Yes my friend, sometimes..."

Thx for the news, TankDawg! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Combat Mission gamers are on our message board right now making suggestions, helping out with research, and contributing ideas. And we listen to them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> *sniff* You know we love you, don't you? [ 06-15-2001: Message edited by: ParaBellum ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ales Dvorak: When you download mods, you are downloading Communism. Red colour? Waiting green?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What are you smoking, dude?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gyrene: ... they'll panic quicker than an Axis Ladder Player on a random QB. Gyrene <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> LOL! Really like this one!

You can actually coordinate an infantry attack with an arty barrage. The trick is moving the infantry while your arty is still firing. Hm, easy said, I know. So it depends how far your infantry is away from their objective. If your infantry is about 100-200m away, then just order them to advance to their objective. At the end of that turn they will be near the objective but (hopefully) still not in your arty target area. Then cancel or shift the barrage and your infantry should reach their objectives with minimal losses and while the enemy is still hugging the ground. It takes quite some time to get the right "feeling" for coordinating such attacks. Play too safe and and the arty barrage ends with your troops too far away from the enemy who will recover and hit your infantry. Move your men to close to the arty barrage and you will get some naste friendly fire problems... But it is truly awarding to perform a perfect coordinated infantry/arty assault!

Assault guns were introduced to give the infantry direct fire support. In the mid 30's there were a lot of discussions in the german army about the use of tanks and their influence on tactics. The artillery branch saw the StuGs as a means to "recapture" some lost ground from the tanks and their leading advocate Guderian. He was against the StuGs since he felt that a turreted tank was a much more potent weapon than the turretless StuGs and he felt that the StuGs based on the hulls of the Pz III and IV would hamper the tank production. During the course of the war the priority for the StuGs slowly shifted from an infantry support role to an anti-tank role. Their low profile and good armour made them quite good tank destroyers although their designation still pointed to their role as support tanks for the infantry. The first tank hunters like the Marder were rushed into production to overcome the threat caused by the russian T-34s and KV series. They were lightly armoured and were more a mobile AT gun than a tank. Their vulnerability showed the need for well armoured tank destroyers that led to the Jagdpanzer IV, the Hetzer and finally the Jagdpanther. The most important features for a tank destroyer are armour and a high velocity gun since he will engage enemy tanks as his primary target. IMO the design of the StuGs could also be called a "tank destroyer" according to these specifications. Today there are still tank destroyers. They've traded their high velocity guns for AT missiles. These vehicles are fast, lightly armoured and (most important) cheaper than an MBT.

Anybody got some, ah, penetration tables for that babe?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: I understood it allright, but I don't think you understand the concept of the CM manual. It is a publication telling you how to play CM. It is not an effort to tie CM in with the war. It is not BTS's business to educate you about the war, there are already thousands of people who have published work for this purpose.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ok David, please calm down. I'm just trying to get some comments about a question I have about the CM 2 manual. As some people here have already mentioned, quite some people would like to read more about stuff like exposure tables, armour values IN the manual. And I still think that some historical information about these topics nicely fit into a CM 2 manual. OK, you like the CM manual the way it is, I like it too but there's always room for improvement. As Jason put it very well, CM is a game. And therefore, a (more) "entertaining" manual with more data would for me increase the "atmosphere" of playing the game. David, I didn't mean to offend you, but your comments seemed a bit harsh to me.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer: Maybe the only thing feasible I could add somewhere along the line what ParaBellum asked for would be some sort of selected bibliography for start or something. yours sincerely, Si Vis Pacem.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hi Hofbaur Yep, I'd like that idea.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: [QB BTS could package CM2 with an encyclopaedia of war on the Eastern Front, and people would still expect something better for the next version. Teach the customer to expect poor products and no service, and the smallest concession will seem like a big improvement to them, and This is why so many companies do no more than necessary to please their customers – because the more they give, the more the customer will want.they'll be happy. Do your best all of the time, and the customer will become disenchanted through your lack of improvement.[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hm, I think I'm misunderstood. I tried to explain just the opposite. I don't want BTS to include the history of WW2 into the manual. My point, sorry if that wasn't clear, was that the manual of CM, as fine as it is in regards to game mechanics, lacks IMHO some points that could improve the atmosphere,make playing CM more comfortable and perhaps give new players an easier approach to the game. I don't understand why it's <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>ridiculous to expect game programmers ... to also give us information about all the various things they modelled. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Why? And as I mentioned in my first post, they're many people on this forum who could contribute to such topics. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If you want some background to CM, get out and find some of these books, instead of expecting programmers to summarise it all for you at no extra cost. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Nice. Be assured that I do read books about topics I'm interested in. I'm really not sure if you understood my post.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys: And it isn't as if printed information of the kind you guys are asking for is all that hard to come by. As evidenced by your posting here, you already have access to the internet and the vast array of information obtainable thereby. And even small town libraries are able to get fairly rare books by inter-library loan. If you live near a sizable urban center, there is likely a hobby shop or book store that can get you as much material as you are ever going to find in the back of a game manual, and probably at a lower cost. Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hi Michael. It's not that I want the CM 2 manual describe the whole russian campaign or detailed tables about, let's say a 1943 Panzer division. Everyone interested in such "advanced" topics can indeed find lots of information on the internet. But I think that the rather "technical" approach of the CM manual could be "spiced up" with some interesting stuff about the environment the game tries to recreate. As Gyrene pointed out, units stats and descriptions would be a great addition to the manual. I always found it a bit annoying to use an Excel document (BTW, thx again to the guy who did that job) with the unit stats just to have a printed version of the stats in the units screen. And yes, many games do a bad job when presenting "historical information" in their manuals. But I think there were also some games that got it right. Just think about "Aces of the Pacific" or "Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe". Lots of information and great to read IMO. I think they gave you a decent "basic knowledge" and encouraged you to get more information about topics you were interested in.

Always glad when another german finds his way into this board and helps to reduce the numerical superiority of the americans... Welcome aboard!

From the manual: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>early in the morning,in woods or after several days of overcast weather or fog, ground conditions will most likely be damp. This raises the chance for vehicles bogging down when off dirt or paved roads. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know what you mean. Question: "You're sitting in a Tiger tank, and through a brilliant tactical maneuver managed to roll into the back of some US tanks. In front of you are 2 Sherman tanks, distance 150m, they haven't noticed you and are presenting you their rear armour. 50m to your left is a medium machinegun. What do you do?" "Ah, Sir, that's easy! It would be gamey to engage the american tanks from behind so I turn the tank to the left and engage the machinegun...." AAAAARGH!!! :eek:

First, don't get me wrong. It's not that I didn't like the CM 1 manual. No. It contained lots of information. Unfortunately not much information I didn't already knew after playing the demo quite some time. I mean, I knew how to plot a waypoint or how to select a squad, but I missed the kind of tactics thing. Or some kind of historical background information. I have some old games, I don't play them anymore but sometimes I just read the manuals, because they were so well done. IMHO a lot of people would like to read a bit about WW2 tactics in the manual, not everyone is a grog with a library of WW2 books at home. Some cool photos, some tank specs or a few interesting stories or maps would surely improve the manual. As I mentioned above, I don't think the CMBO manual is bad, just maybe a bit too technical. I know there are some people on this board with a wealth of knowledge about WW2 and the eastern front, and I'm sure some would love to contribute to CMBB in a way. And yes, of course the CM 2 manual should have something about 300 pages...

The most feared CM 2 sound for me will be: "Oh god, are you still playing that silly game? You said 5 minutes, and that's been AN HOUR AGO!!"

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer Leader: I agree that we should have had the PzIII in CMBO, but I believe I read somewhere that in Africa, Rommel had a detachment of long 75 PzIII's, so I would assume they also had them on the East Front, if that is true.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Nope. The KwK 75L46 (long 75mm) couldn't be installed in the Pz III due to its smaller (compared to Pz IV) turret. There were no Mk IIIs produced with said weapon. Edit: Perhaps you mean the Stug III which used the long 75mm gun. [ 06-08-2001: Message edited by: ParaBellum ]

Thx BTS! Those pics should keep me alive for the next few weeks...

Sounds like a good idea to me. Not that I want my forces to go from green status to elite after two battles, but if my green troops get into combat, fight well and don't suffer too many casualties, after two, three engagements I think it's pretty realistic for them to be modeled as a more experienced unit. I think the step from green to conscript or from conscript to regular could be simulated over the course of a few battles.

I just thought about the time I first heard something about a promising game concept called "Combat Mission". I was spring 1999 and I was studying in China, in Beijing to be exact. In the "friendship store" I stumbled across a game mag called "Computer Gaming World". I bought it. Somewhere in the mag there was a short article about an upcoming wargame that uses 3D-graphics and a we-go turn based system. I went to an internet cafe and searched the web 'till I found a site called "Battlefront.com". Back to Germany I downloaded the demo and ordered the game a few weeks later. I don't know what had happened if I hadn't bought that mag on that very special day...

Not too bad for a beta... Just kidding, this is awesome!! :eek: I just lit a candle in a nearby church and prayed for Marco...

I remember the debate about the "hull down bug", which is when your tank is hull down its target automatically gets hull down status, too. I tried the search but it still doesn't work. I just placed a Pz IV in a hull down position on a reverse slope and 3 Stuarts 400m away on open ground. The Pz IV got the hull down status as well as the Stuarts. I really don't know how the Stuarts on open ground could hide their hull from the Pz IV on higher ground!! In front of the Pz IV was a wall, so I also got the "bow MG blocked" text. Funny thing is that the Stuarts' MGs were also blocked. By what? The hill 400m away??? Was that bug fixed? Was it a bug? Any comments?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pvt. Ryan: But it's a smaller target overall. Isn't that the point of going hull down? If the PzIV is not hull down then the enemy can hit the hull, turret, tracks, etc. The turret is just as vulnerable whether hull down or not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> A big problem is that the the Pz IV's turret can even be penetrated by 37mm. Stuarts and Greyhounds with their accurate gun and their high ROF will score a turret hit faster than you can say "hull down". If the Pz IV is not hull down, most of the shells will hit the center of the tank, normally the front hull and thus fail to penetrate the armour.

IMO one should be carefull to position a PzKpfw IV in a hull down position. Its turret armour is much weaker than its hull armour. So if just the turret is visible to enemy AT assets, they can only hit this "weak spot". If the Mk IV is not hull down, chances are higher that shells don't hit the vulnerable turret but the better armoured hull, which is better protected. Ah, and if you place the non turreted Stugs and Jpz hull down on a reverse slope, the combined effect of the armour slope and the slope on which the tank is sited can make them nearly invulnerable. At least to frontal hits...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer Leader: [QB So, really, what I am trying to say is, does anyone with skill, or at least a modicum of joy in playing a good game, want to try a balanced, and perhaps refreshingly interesting scenario? [/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh, there a lot of guys with more than enough skill to devastate your forces. Not me, but you can still send me a setup.