engy

Steve, Thanks so much for the responses. I know the MG-firepower-won't-stop-hordes-of-SMG-troops topic has been beaten to death, and I certainly wasn't trying to drag this in that direction again. I only brought it up because I have a PBEM opponent who tends to buy extra German HMGs and he still can't keep me from closing (with US or British Rifle) the gap. However, random QB's are far from the textbook case, as you pointed out. Secondly, on the experience range, my only thought was that a Green-Regular group is not going to be a whole lot of fun to play on the attack: Advance 50m to next treeline. Get hit by MG Fire and Direct Fire HE. Break and rout backwards 50m. Repeat as necessary until surrender. However, I think the lights just went on in my head...using Green/Regular troops it is entirely possible to recreate that "Stop the attack cold at 300m" scenario. Hmmm...

Steve, I'm extremely sorry to butt in where I probably don't belong, but I've become extremely curious about 2 points: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> One thing we have already done is make Green the default Experience level, not Regular. Experience ranges for Quick Battles have also been adjusted downward so, for example, you get to buy Green-Regular troops instead of Conscript-Green or Regular-Veteran. This should lead to more use of Green and Regular troops and less Regular and Veteran combos <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Is there a reason you haven't expanded the range to include 3 levels: Con-Grn-Reg, Grn-Reg-Vet, Reg-Vet-Cr/El? I understand the point about the historical basis for the inclusion of more Green troops, but it would seem also historical to have a Veteran platoon to form the crucial part of the attack/defense. A Green-Regular-Veteran mix is exactly what appeared throughout the war for most nations, excluding crises (early war Russian Green/Conscript abundance, etc). <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> German infantry doctrine called for engaging the enemy at 500m + (more or less) with HMGs to break up the cohesiveness of the enemy attack. Artillery and larger mortars were then called down to (hopefully) finish the job. That was the primary goal -> to stop the attack before it really started. This meant that friendly infantry losses would not be necessary and the line could be held for sure. If the enemy continued its attack at about 300m-400m the LMGs of the squad would open up suppress/kill targets that had slipped through the HMG and artiller/mortar fire. Again, the hope was to stop the attack cold, not let the enemy get into the trenches. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Will we be able to recreate this in CMBB? Currently, unless the defending German has a ridiculous amount of HMGs, there is no way MG fire at 500m will slow anything down. It hardly even changes the alertness state in CMBO. Even 300m is extreme range for HMG fire to have any appreciable effect, yet this is where you say the attack is supposed to be stopped cold. Hmm, the above tone sounds much more critical than it's intended to be. I love CM and have never played anything like it, so please don't feel like I'm calling your baby ugly. Again, sorry for the intrusion...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I was thinking and it would be nice to see a few modifiers added to tanks like there is now for HQs with the command and combat bonus. For example each tank would have a set of traits like gunnery, driving, and spotting maybe <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It certainly is an interesting idea. It sounds like BTS is taking a step in that direction by including a Morale state for vehicles in CM2:BtB. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> And while I'm at it I would also like to see negative modifiers for infantry, like a -1 morale or combat because from what I understand the prowess, or lack there of, of fighting men stems from their leaders. So again we might see veteran troops serving a leader who doesn't have his act together and this of course would be reflected in the performance of his troops. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Since each HQ has 3 levels of proficiency (no bonus, +1 bonus, +2 bonus), we already have something very close to what you are asking. All you have to do is consider the 'no-bonus' state to be an HQ that is sub-average in that category, a '+1 bonus' to be an HQ which is adequate, and a '+2 bonus' to be superb. Have you ever seen Regular--or worse yet, Green--troops with a no-bonus HQ (and I mean no bonuses at all)? They are about the last thing you want to use in a critical location because they certainly act like they would rather be anywhere else but in the battle. All that having been said, I still like the idea. It brings back memories of those 6+1 leaders from Squad Leader.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Walker: Now that would be nice, especially for on-board mortars!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> On board mortars can be under command of any HQ in your OOB--platoon, company, etc--as long as they are in command radius. One point to note, though, is that they will attach to the nearest HQ, which may not be what you want for LOS purposes.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KnifeForkSpoon: P.S. Love that info 'bout flamethrowers with the engineers. Might have to fiddle round with that a bit. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I love it too. How many will I get? engy [ 07-03-2001: Message edited by: engy ]

Uh-oh. I'm going to need a 6-pounder for the counterattack? This could be bad. :eek: I've been a beta-tester of sorts for KFS for some of his Market-Garden series of scenarios... [shameless plug coming for KFS--be warned!] and they oustanding!!! He has created a bunch of beautiful maps and done an excellent job with the force composition for both sides. If he ever releases them for the rest of the world, grab them quick.

However, there is the case of 2 Tigers sitting on the brige at Arnhem (Market-Garden) which were given the orders to shell the houses above the British paras 'floor by floor until the houses drop on their heads.' IIRC they were very successful and kept the British hopping from building to building to escape imminent collapse and a significant portion of Arnhem along along the riverbank was reduced to rubble. Unfortunately, I have no idea what those houses were made from, but I seem to recall that they were 4 stories or so, which would make them either a CM "Tall Light Building" or a "Tall Heavy Building" (but, from the pictures I remember, they are taller and thinner in proportion than the CM Tall Heavy Building). I ran 2 quick tests: I. Tiger v. Tall Light Building Results: 1. Tiger expends 8 rounds of HE 2. Total time to building collapse: 1 min, 38 secs. II. I. Tiger v. Tall Heavy Building Results: 1. Tiger expends 16 rounds of HE 2. Total time to building collapse: 2 min, 58 secs. My comments: 1. If the anecdotes from Market-Garden are true, the Germans did use 88mm Direct Fire HE to bring down buildings. 2. The time to bring down the buildings seems a little quick, but on the other hand, the "Tall Heavy Building" took nearly half of the HE load of the Tiger. I'm throwing this out there as food for thought...any comments? Edited for formatting/spelling mistakes, and to add my comment on the proportions of the CM Tall Heavy Building. [ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: engy ]

Ok. I've been thinking about this for awhile and two stories in other threads (one of which I read today in the Panther/T-34 thread about a T-34 ambush of Panthers) have prompted this proposal. As a defender in a probe/attack/assault, it does not seem to matter what terrain I put a Tank or TD in -- as soon as anything has LOS to it, it gets spotted. The only way I have found to currently hide an AFV is to be behind some obstacle and move out from behind it, or to be in a depression so that the OPFOR vehicles only spot it as they crest the hill. However, these stories suggest that it is possible to camouflage an AFV sufficiently that it can spring a successful ambush. The camouflage, I'm assuming, is a carefully prepared combination of netting, branches, leaves, grass, etc. So, here's the proposal: should AFV's in suitable terrain (brush, scattered trees) be given a concealment bonus if they start the game hidden, which they would lose once they move (to represent loss of the prepared cover)? A couple of thoughts before I turn this over to the ravenous dogs to rip me to shreds: 1. NO, I DIDN'T DO A SEARCH. But, I've been watching this board pretty faithfully for almost a year now and I don't remember the issue being brought up. 2. I'm not talking about AT guns and infantry, which are able to spring ambushes from extremely close distances. 3. I'm not sure of the programming involved, so feel free to tell me that it's a ridiculously time-consuming request that won't make it into the code until CM IV: The Spanish Civil War. Thanks much.

KFS... Instead of writing letters to mom, shouldn't you be sending me a turn full of Germans retreating from a ferocious Polish onslaught? (Not that you're busy or anything. )

Wow. The color splashscreens are good, but a couple of those black-and-white splashscreens are incredible. Edited because I can't spell today. [ 06-13-2001: Message edited by: engy ]

There is an excellent CM 1.12 unit database at the end of this page: Chris' CM Database Please read the instructions ("Select All, Choose Font") for the Excel file or you will end up looking at nothing.

Very very nice, TeAcH. Also, excellent suggestion, Philistine. It got me thinking that for a QB I might prefer the linear distribution, but for a scenario it might be better to have the bell-curve weight the end-game toward the "scheduled" turn. Would it be possible to include a toggle to choose between the two? (That is, in version 1.2, or 2.0, or 16.1, whenever you have the time. ) -sigh- We're such a rough crowd. TeAcH comes up with this, George designs the QB randomizer, and before they know it we have a list of "suggestions" a mile long for them. Is this how BTS must feel? engy

Rocket pre-bombardment can be terribly effective... If you're the gambling type as a German defender, buy 3x150mm Rockets, lowest quality possible, and 3 TRP's. Place the TRPs evenly spaced side-to-side in the opponents set-up zone, preferably/hopefully in your LOS. Target the rockets 1 per TRP in Turn 1; if in LOS you'll get about 45 seconds for the rockets to fall, which gives the attacker no time to clear his setup zone. Typically this will avoid friendly fire casualties because you are targeting the rockets as far as possible from your own troops. You'll get three possible results, then: 1. For the extremely fortunate, you'll kill an enemy arty FO, get a top kill on a AFV, or land a round right smack in the middle of his clumped up reserves hiding behind that hill. If your opponent has never been subjected to this before he will be extremely rattled and you've got the game as well as won. 2. For the less fortunate, you'll kill a couple of guys from a couple of squads and scare the socks off the rest, but by the time they hit your lines the adverse morale effects will wear off. 3. If you're like me, you'll land each and every round on a very empty patch of grass and wish you'd have spent that ~200 points on something different. Furthermore, you'll be facing the opponent-of-the-century who knows that you just blew a whole wad of points and now he's ready to make the kill. So, it's not for the faint of heart, nor something to try every game, but certainly is fun every once in awhile. engy

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Blackthorne: I always wondered if by issuing the withdrawl command you cost your troops morale points. Does anyone know if simply by issuing this order your troops become more demoralized?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, "withdraw" will cause a drop in morale. The amount of the effect will vary, depending on the following: 1. Current morale state 2. In/out of command 3. If in command, the morale rating of the HQ. 4. The experience level of troops So, a veteran/in-command/OK squad can withdraw fairly safely...you might expect an alerted/cautious state at the end of the movement. However, withdrawing a green/out-of-command/Alerted squad could result in a Broken! squad when it's all over. So, use that withdraw command before 5 enemy squads open fire on you from 5 different directions, because by that time it's probably too late... engy

If you want the glitzy database with pictures, then your answer is "No, it hasn't been updated." However, Chris Hare has a very functional 1.12 database here For all the details, warnings, credits, etc., see this recent thread: Unit Database Edit: Wow, I really botched that UBB Code. [ 05-08-2001: Message edited by: engy ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by A Arabian: by someone as a third party DB. I don't recall the URL offhand (anyone?) but I've found it invaluable. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm not sure if this is the one you are thinking about, but here is one unit database (at the bottom of the page) Chris Hare's CM Database If you use the Excel files, please be sure to note his comment about choosing a font after opening the spreadsheet. If you don't, you won't see much. engy

Wow, what a wealth of information! However, using IE 5.0 neither one of the links given seems to work for me, unfortunately. Anyone else having a problem?

Sorry to drag this one up from the depths, but as soon as I offered to send out the file, our router crashed and I've been without a connection the last 3 days. So, if anybody emailed me about the file and hasn't received it yet, please email me again. engy

I have a very useful file containing US/Brit/German arty stats (Blast, Cost, ROF, etc) for all sizes. I obtained it off of the old board sometime last fall and I wish I could give the author the credit, but I have completely forgotten who it is. Enoch--I don't have any way to post it to the web but if you'd like it, email me (address in the profile) and I'll send it back to you. engy Edit: Ack, forgot 2 things: 1. Yes, the file also does all those mathematical opearations on the arty statistics (point/cost, blast*point/cost). 2. It's an Excel spreadsheet, so you'll either need Excel, an Excel viewer, or tell me to covert it to a text table. [ 04-24-2001: Message edited by: engy ]

Usually I don't stick my nose in these discussions, but here's information about the alleged Soviet POW executions: (from the web page"Stalin's Killing Field", with primary sources listed there) An excerpt follows... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> And so the story [about Katyn] stood until fall 1998, when Moscow made a bizarre move. In September, Procurator General Yuri Chayka sent a letter to Poland's minister of justice demanding an official inquiry into the deaths of Russian soldiers captured during the Polish-Soviet war of 1919-1921. The letter asserted that 83,500 internees had died "in Polish concentration camps as a result of cruel and inhuman conditions." Chayka added: "The information we have allows us to conclude that genocide was applied to Red Army POWs." 25 Poland officially rejected the allegation but not before offering to cooperate in a joint search of Polish and Russian archives for additional information. (The offer was not accepted.) This was the first time Moscow had raised such an allegation at an official level, but such charges had been circulating in Russian circles for some time. A rumor heard in Warsaw in the early 1990s claimed that Gorbachev had ordered his staff to find a "counterbalance" to Katyn. The rumor has not been confirmed, but after the first Katyn disclosure in 1990 the Soviet (and later Russian) press occasionally cited alleged abuses in Polish POW camps. Headlines such as "Strzakowo--A Polish Katyn" and "Tuchola--A Death Camp" were typical but attracted little notice. Then, in July 1998, the Moscow paper Nezavisimaya Gazeta [independent Newspaper] ran a front-page article claiming that tens of thousands of prisoners had died as a result of shootings, starvation, and exposure. This article formed the basis of Chayka's demarche. 26 It went beyond previous assertions that Russians and Poles both were victims of Stalinism: "The present position of Warsaw resembles the former position of the USSR, which failed to confess the Katyn crime for a long time . . . . It would be good if Poland followed in Russia's footsteps and pleaded guilty to the savagery [against Red Army soldiers]." The case for moral equivalence had been replaced by a claim to moral superiority. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow, *very* interesting idea. That one is certainly food for thought.

We have a Netzero account (and a Juno account) at home. Both providers are beginning to closely monitor time online, time-of-day accessibility, bandwidth used, etc., and users who are 'excessive' are forced to use a paid ISP (JunoWeb, for example, for Juno customers...$9.95 US a month or so). My guess is that just as some of the other free ISP's have closed shop, this is probably the beginning of the end for Netzero and Juno. However, to answer the original question: We have been quite pleased with the Netzero account. There seem to be fewer dropped connections than with the other free ISP's.

Common enough to make it into CM2? If so, how is BTS ever going to handle this? Excellent article, btw. Thanks for posting it for the rest of us to see. engy Edited for minor formatting changes. ------------------ "He who makes war without many mistakes has not made war very long." Napoleon Bonaparte [This message has been edited by engy (edited 03-02-2001).]

What a surprise that is.

Honestly, I've never close assaulted a vehicle in CM before (20 or so PBEM games), so I wasn't sure what to expect. With that many infantry milling about and the halftracks unable to shoot back once they were shocked, I would have been surprised at any other result. engy