ropey

Michael that's kind of my point. Given that tanks were rare, support vehicles would have had a relatively MAJOR role at this level. If they were as effective as CM:BO suggests they would have been used far more often. That they were not suggests that they WEREN'T this effective in real life. The Kiwis used the Wasps as well, but as you say they were usually in a set-piece battle - positions are softened and pinned by arty, then cleared out by Wasps and other elements. Ours were attached from engineer units but if they were this effective I would have expected our troops to have them as a matter of course! What do YOU do to counter them?

Short 75 rules don't allow Flammpanzers but do allow the Wasp (don't know why). Also under these rules an AT gun needs a towing vehicle which puts the price at about the same as a tank or another platoon. Puma is allowed, so perhaps that's the answer?

I read this too late - a Wasp just toasted my StuH. His 114 points have run with impunity through a company+ of Heer liberally armed with 'fausts and supported by HMGs. Now they have killed a buttoned StuH. If these vehicles were so bloody good in the real world (any experts out there?), why did the allies bother with tanks? They are small and fast enough that most tanks (let alone SPs) will struggle to target them, and once buttoned they seem immune to infantry. (Except perhaps 'schreks but these were busy with his armour, and I suspect they would also struggle with the size and speed of the Wasp.) Do most players in a 1000 pointer choose a 20mm as a normal buy?

Yeah, and at 57 points a very good buy!

Arrgh it gets worse - turn 19 and another one has appeared! I have managed to take out his last tank, so if my StuH42 survives a lone PIAT I may get my revenge on the cursed Wasps! Thanks for the advice about picks - too late now, but maybe next time.

Kiwis used Stuart 'Kangaroos' as recce vehicles too. They came into use after Cassino, around May '44. They don't seem to have been known by the 'Kangaroo' term though - rather they seem to have been known as Honeys even after the turret was removed. Most show a pintle mounted .30 MG. Some had their compartments covered over to a greater or lesser degree.

My current game has a Wasp causing havoc to three(!) platoons of Heer. The latter have liberal quantities of 'fausts and yet not one has been fired, even as the squads chuck grenades. Why the hell not? This Wasp seems immune to HMG fire and has just wandered at will through the middle of the 3 plats - is that normal or just lucky?

Much as Kiwis would like to take credit, our attacks on Cassino were all eventually failures, and it was the Poles who finally took it. Not to take anything away from our fighting abilities, our campaigns are marked by failure as much as success - Greece/Crete, Mareth Line, Orsogna/Cassino vs El Alamein, and the pursuits in Libya and Italy. This makes for a closer comparison between the two countries' performances. [ May 04, 2002, 09:46 PM: Message edited by: ropey ]

Thanks Steve. I appreciate the answer and look forward to improvements in this area. I think my point may have been misunderstood a little though. It is the difference between the AI and the player's knowledge that concerns/confuses me. You say <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "However, we can reduce the chance of identifying when the enemy unit is wiped out. For our new level of Fog of War, which does not show enemy headcount, an infantry unit that is eliminated will show up as a generic spotting marker. This means you will never know, until you get in close, if the unit you were shooting at is eliminated, Hiding, or withdrawn." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's fine, it will reduce my ability to make these distinctions as a player(which wasn't my gripe), but will it also do the same for the TacAI (which was)? In the examples given the player couldn't differentiate units, but the TacAI could. [ 07-26-2001: Message edited by: ropey ]

A nightmare turn for you Bertram. You do everything right and the game screws you up... I could understand most of these causes IF the target was clearly identified, but when a player only sees a marker, why should the AI know better and be able to pick out HQs, AT and mortar crews? In the stats I didn't go into the fire the PB was recieving, or the cover the various units were in - they just make it worse. I've said this elsewhere, but what is the point of detailed penetration tables and modelling of every shell, etc, etc, if more basic things aren't addressed?

I'll check for this, but I'm pretty sure the targetting remained until the target went out of sight or another better one came along, and that the gun fired as often as it reloaded at whatever it was targetting. That is, it didn't seem to go back to a target to fire. 7 retargets in a minute? Doesn't seem right.

Not a test - a game. My question is not why it switches, but how it could possibly know. :confused:

Here are some targetting stats I would welcome some comment on. The firing unit is a reg 75mm pb. Opening range is 480m. Turn 1, 4 changes of target: Sqd-PIAT-PIAT-HQ T2, 4: Inf-HQ-sqd-sqd T3, 1: Inf (part smoked) T4, 3: sqd-PIAT-PIAT T5, 2: Area-Inf T6, 0: T7, 7: HQ-sqd-sqd-HQ-sqd-sqd-HQ T8, 3: sqd-sqd-sqd (440-460mm) T9, 2: 2"-sqd (400-420m) T10, 2: sqd-sqd T11, 3: 2"-PIAT-sqd (300m) T12, 4: HQ-PIAT-sqd-sqd T13, 4: sqd-sqd-sqd-HQ T14, 3: sqd-sqd-HQ T15, 4: sqd-sqd-sqd-sqd T16, 3: sqd-sqd-HQ T17, 2: sqd-HQ T18, 0: T19, 7: Area-HQ-HQ-sqd-HQ-PIAT-HQ Average of 3 retargets per minute or 1 every 20 secs. I don't think the fact it is a pb makes any difference except where it might otherwise have been suppressed. Can someone explain/clarify the following: 1, Is this amount of retargetting realistic? 2, If the contact is a generic "Infantry?" marker, how can the AI pick special units? (Or in other words, if the AI knows it is an HQ not a sqd, why does the player not?) 3, How come the AI can tell the difference between an empty 2" and a loaded one? 4, How come the AI can tell a unit's status? (The pb stops firing at units that have expended their ammo, and/or that have a status change such as panic.) :confused: [ 07-24-2001: Message edited by: ropey ]

I know all about the game is not reality - I've been playing these games for twenty years. I think CM:BO is great but for all the grog's penetration arguments, IMO something more basic is happening to throw the reality out. I agree that the God's eye view is a real problem, so I'm going to try these 'Ironman' rules for a while, but I also think something else is going on, and it has more to do with how easily things are seen. (Like the degradation by smoke, mist, etc mentioned above, but perhaps because terrain does not give enough cover?) Higher resolutions in CM2 should allow more wrinkles, so this (apparent) problem may be lessened. The grognard's arguments may tend to pursuade less groggy player's that this game is highly realistic. I would suggest they read some of the histories and compare their feel with the feel of the game.

I do these things, but quite often 'accidental' rounds even 20-30m away end in an abandoned or KO mortar. My MGs are not this fragile, so what gives? :confused:

The speed is the first thing that seems to be wrong, but I think that it is related to the openness of terrain/celarness of vision. My unit histories often mention patrols getting to within spitting distance of enemy troops - they could clearly hear conversations and movement - but this is not possible in CM:BO in my experience. Even sneaking or crawling units at night get spotted much further out than this. This seems to result in shorter, faster firefights, as visibility is better than historically. I haven't expressed my doubts very well here, but the more I play, the less my feeling of historicity. (Maybe Marco's rules will restore it? )

I think my view-point must be coloured by the Italian campaign. In MY reading, bridges are involved in three ways: 1, Intact and undefended 2, Intact and defended 3, Blown The first situation isn't gaming material. In 2 above, the result was Allies arrive, bridge is blown, which can't be simulated in CM:BO. In 3 above the usual method was assault crossing by boat (and later Buffalo) followed by placing an assault bridge (scissors or bailey). The first part of this can be gamed, but not the second. I can't actually recall reading of an assault crossing of an intact bridge. So, is this not the case in Europe, and why not? Did the Germans not blow bridges as they retreated? BTW, thanks for your example Wild Bill. I note that this is in the 'free and easy' period at the end of the war, and this is mirrored in Italy. (Was there a howl about US use of German uniforms after the German use of US uniforms in the Bulge?) I would also guess there would be several small actions during Cobra, so perhaps I could narrow my initial question down to any assault crossings during the more static periods prior to Cobra or after the German line stiffened. GonzoAttacker, the question probably seemed banal on the surface, but as explained above, in Italy these battles did not SEEM to occur. [ 05-25-2001: Message edited by: ropey ]

There is a lot of talk about specifics of armour penetration etc, but has there been discussion of the overall feeling of realism? After reading several unit histories I can't help but feel the battles don't come out how they would historically.

Can anyone point me to any discussion on the fragility of mortars? Mine seem to get knocked out if someone sneazes. [ 05-24-2001: Message edited by: ropey ]

There seem to be a large number of battles over bridge crossings, but aside from Remagen, can anyone name one that didn't involve paras? :confused:

Oh, and a scenario called 'Railway Station' on CMHQ somewhere.

I've got an unfinished one, with a great map (blowing my own trumpet. ) Is that of any use?