Scipio

BTW, I thought the key to the most successfull operations in WWII were the fast advancing armored troops that encircled the enemy and cut his supply lines? Aint that the central point of Guderians/Nehrings teaches about tank warfare, and back further of the cavallery??? Of course it is unfair from the viewpoint of the loser. But I really can't remember a battle that was won because of fairness. I propose that BTS add Sunzi's 'Art of War' as appendix to the next CM tactics guide.

Maybe - but then they also have unlimited supply. 'More experience' doesn't make sense to me, a Green Lieutenant isn't necessarily better then a veteran grunt, just because he's a Lieutenant. BTW, I like it, too.

If so, it isn't shown in the units stats. They can also not given to them in the editor.

It's my impression that HQs have a high 'AT value'. They have only handgrenades, but it seems they kill every tank with them if it's close enough. I never noticed that with 'normal' infantry units, not even AT teams seem to be so sucessfull. Can somebody else confirm this, and do you have an idea about the reasons?

Vadr, this guy/gal is a Weichflöte (loser, softie & and some worse), you should inform him about that. You should also recomment him/her to play vs the AI only, and maybe to stick his head in the own arse instead of wasting good peoples time.

Gamey? All gamey I see here is somebody who has forgotten to cover his flanks or backyard well enough and now try to make his own error to the error of his opponent. Sorry, isn't meant personal. It's my opinion that everything is allowed, except both opponents agreed to extra rules before the game has started.

Again: the BTS crew, especially the programer can give you all the informations. Ask him directly, don't waste your time with 100s of testmatches. P.S.: Sorry, but I must confess that I'm a little bit annoyed, cause BTS said they would give us a much better and detailed manual for CMBB than for CMBO. It seems they have send me another manual. [ January 16, 2003, 12:07 AM: Message edited by: Scipio ]

Not in reality. But we are talking about a computer program that (hopefully ) does what the programer wants it to do. The simple question that only the programer can answer : Gives a HQ a stealth bonus to a gun, and if yes, does the program set it to zero when the guns has fired a shot?

How about things like that : Ammo/Gun/Optics with production errors Drunken gunner etc

Why?

Good point, company and Battalion HQ's with good stealth would make them harder to spot. Problem is, its hard to have a HQ for each gun. They should probably be set up in batteries so that one HQ can command 3 or 4 guns or something.</font>

Yes, I always enjoy to hear myself talking. There's nothing better then a good monologue, cause I always have such a fine and intelligent interlocutor when doing so.

Well, I guess the current CMBB engine has still lost of 'errors' and 'problems' and limitations. To name something, the visibility engine is...you know? No starshells, fire doesn't change something, too, always static view range, no real dusk/dawn effects (don't tell me that visibility doesn't change within an half hour or more). The artillery system is still simplistic. The weather is always static. No horses , no motorbikes, no multi-turret tanks. No moving weels. The graphic is maybe the best of all wargames, but it's engine is somewhat 'clumsy'. ...to be continued...

Missunderstanding - I meant this idiot of FO must be blind, otherwise he would see that the shells come in wrong. But I was always speaking about targeting with LOS, for the inital target order and also for the correction order. But well, if artillery targeting with LOS is influenced by luck, then I don't understand the reason, and I ask again - what is the sense of spotting rounds?

Well Steve, so let me asked again for this mistery issue : a) I give an artillety order. The shells go down to a completly wrong place. (well, tough luck, completly incompetent FO etc) I give a correction order. The artillery goes down to the exactly same wrong place. Tough luck etc again? So whats the sense of spotting rounds at all? What have I missed?

Oh well, why doesn't BTS come up with their documents about the rate of bogged and immobile vehicels first? Would make it easier to compare with (maybe) other sources.

Well, in this case tanks should get always and immediatly get immobile when bogging!? And how does a tank in CM get out of the calamity alone? BTW, during my army time we lost only once a 'tank' (M113 mortar carrier) to this, and indeed it didn't booged and then tried to get out, it just drove into a hole, lost a track and finished. I just wonder, cause you speak of own experience - how many tanks have you usually lost to such issues within an hour, or even a day?

Rex, in princip I agree. I don't have a problem with bogging tanks (what is, depending on the ground and vehicel) maybe realistic - my problem is that a bogged tank has high chance to get permanently immobile. BTW, I just lost a T-34/85 that way just a few days ago in 'damp' open ground. If there something should be changed, than that tanks get very rarely permanent immobile after bogging, and instead a few minutes more as time penalty to 'unbog'. So heavy tanks have still a tactical disadvantage, cause it makes a great difference if you face a phallanx of Tigers or one after another.

Sire, this is BS . First, show me the source were is mentioned the high rate of heavy tanks will get immobile to technical reasons and bogging (let's assume that 'bog' abstract also other tech. problems) within the timeframe of a CM battle = max 2 hours. Except catastrophies like the 'prerealesed' Panther and Elephants at Kursk (where the many were already lost BEFORE they reached the battle) . Second - WWII Russia had only very few paved roads. An unpaved 'road' was usually nothing but the often used way between two points. Nothing on it deserved to be called a 'road'. In other words, it was as unreliable as any other open ground to move your tanks on it. You should keep also in mind that even a couple of 5t HTs destroys an unpaved road - even within the CM timeframe. There's only a full turn necessary. Third - You ask for realism with bogged tanks, so why you mention 'balanced' scenarios? A balanced battle is not just unrealistic, it is indeed a situation that any commander want to avoid. That's a (if not the) basic principle. Of course is a highly unbalanced scenario not really funny to play. So what - gamefun or (so called) realism?

Steve - About your first post here, I really don't see the point. 'Ladder players' seem to have a bad reputation for you. THAT'S RACISM . Does this mean that 'non-ladder-players' don't play to win? In a PBEM I had a few weeks ago, my opponent lost 50% of his tanks to bog -> immobile. That was very frustating for him, and for me to, cause he finished the battle with surrender after 15 rounds. Where is the fun on this? Realism is fine. But loosing 8 tanks to immobilaziation within 15 minutes? The Fuehrer would have been very unammused! IMO this goes far beyond the 'luck factor'. Generally, I think 'bog down' wouldn't be that worse if it wouldn't end up so often in 'Immobile'. Maybe it would be enough tough luck if the tank needs longer to get mobile again, and the rate of 'Immobile' tanks would be strongly reduced. If my opponent has 4 Tigers (for example), and they bog down frequently, so they reach the show only one by one, that's one thing. If they never reach the show, cause they get immobile after bog - that's pretty uncool. The short time factor of a CM battle was often mentioned in other threats, and it's influence on the game is a beloved 'excuse' for many things in CM. I wonder why this doesn't apply to the number of bogged->immobile tanks. What is the historic source for this, if I'm allowed to asked.

Bump

Some of you may know the excellent 'Encyclopedia of German tanks of WWII' by Chamberlain & Doyle or the 'Encyclopedia of UK & US tanks of WWII' by Chamberlain & Ellis. Is a similar book about Soviet tanks of WWII out there? BTW, I'm missing several models listed in the German tank book in CMBB (but to be true, not so many as you might think)

You guys are wasting your time; a full conversion for the Germans does already exist! :cool: Look at the WarfareHQ CMBB Mod Section [ December 28, 2002, 04:24 PM: Message edited by: Scipio ]

Hi folks, I have improved the Installer tool for my ModPack. Version 2.0 changes: - Winter Smocks for Tank Crews are now available, too - You can now use additonal modpacks or add selfcreated Modpacks in a simple way. A help file if of course included. Click here to go to the download page [ December 27, 2002, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: Scipio ]

Another simple question - has wind any influence on the gameplay/battle results, or does it just look good? [ December 27, 2002, 10:07 AM: Message edited by: Scipio ]