Hensworth

Why don't you just select one and hit enter ?

It is not the case. The company commander's bonuses only have an effect on units directly under their command. I usually put them in charge of any infantry heavy weapons I have. Spot for mortars, stop MGs from breaking under the least bit of fire, improving the performance of guns. If I don't have any heavy weapons that need taking care of, I usually send them with their unit to rally broken troops or take over from fallen platoon HQs. In bigger battles I will try to do a mix of both, sending the HQs with morale and combat bonuses with the grunts while keeping the ones with command and stealth bonuses in the rear. I've read some hints from people about using them to toughen up your formations by taking out the weakest platoon HQs and replacing them with the company HQ if they have better bonuses. It's probably worth doing, but those black command lines just annoy me.

Crap. Double post [ June 21, 2006, 11:54 PM: Message edited by: Sgt_Kelly ]

Want to help develop one? I put together some notes on using CMAK to simulate the battles for South Beveland in Oct 1944 but really had no time or inclination to do anything with them other than break forces on both sides into company sized bits. Basically there are two Allied divisions plus British commandos against two German divisions in a rather large setting (Walcheren Island and the South Beveland peninsula). If you wanted to help put something together and GM it maybe we could whip something up that would be a) easy and fun. Just an idea. I've not had a lot of spare time in the last little while but if someone was enthusiastic enough I might consider it. The subject matter probably wouldn't appeal to anyone as much as Market Garden, Bulge, etc., but for a campaign on the scale you are talking about I think it would be good. As for the strategic layer, I was thinking of using VASSAL and even created a mapboard and counters to represent the forces. No spreadsheets, no COCAT, nothing complicated. Just an old fashioned map board and some counters representing CM units. Each unit would have steps representing 10% casulties, 20 percent, etc. or in other words, no save game files, just fire up the right map in the editor and pick the forces corresponding to the pieces on the mapboard. </font>

What scenario ? Which tanks ?

Infantry is the saving grace of the Soviet OoB in CMBB. Since everything else is tactically inferior to begin with and frequently BFC-borked on top (artillery is too expensive to be bought in useful amounts, AT assets are worse than they really were, asinine heavy tank behaviour), heavy investment in SMG infantry is the Soviet player's only option. Everything else you're more than likely to either get killed (tanks) or get no use out of (artillery). Once the map comes up in a QB, it's a simple equation. If there is a covered approach to a sufficient number of flags, the Soviet player will win, because the German can't buy enough firepower to shift all the Soviet infantry and any small infantry forces that he has rushed to the flags in HTs will be slaughtered by SMG short range firepower. If there are swathes of open ground to be covered, the German will win because he can interdict the approaches to the flags from range with assets that the Soviet player can do nothing about (80mm front armored StuG).

Which is the point JasonC wishes to make.

I believe so, yes.

I'll do some tests of my own. Edit : got bored with it. [ February 27, 2006, 11:56 AM: Message edited by: Sgt_Kelly ]

I don't see the need to postulate an 'in-turn' unhide command for the AI but unavailable to the human player, since its behaviour can be explained fully by known properties of the TacAI. I.e. unhiding is influenced by unit experience and being in command (but not by covered arcs, which I agree with Steve are too sophisticated to be used by the AI). The AI seems to pay some attention to command for units that have an organic HQ. I.e. it can deploy a platoon in such a way as to have all or at least most squads in command of the HQ. The AI does not know how to put units that do not have their own HQ under the control of others. Thus, things like MGs and guns often, but not always, find themselves out of command and will therefore be more prone to breaking fire discipline. This explains some of the randomness observed. The rest is caused by the randomness of spotting itself, which is probably quite high for a hidden unit. This explains your example of the green platoon charging the crack MG. Two random parameters are at work there : one determining whether the MG has spotted the charging platoon, the other determining whether it will override hide orders to open fire. Since you chose a crack MG, the tendency for it to override orders will be low, which is why the platoon frequently makes it into the trench before the MG has even opened fire. If you put the MG under control of an HQ, it would probably happen even more. However, spotting ability also increases with experience, so while the crack unit will be less willing to ignore orders, it has a better chance of spotting the advancing enemy sooner. A less experienced MG crew would have a smaller chance of spotting the enemy (though probably not dramatically so), but would be tempted to open up more easily. The interplay of these two factors is all you need to explain the variance in what you see happening. Overall, I'd expect you to have less success with the charging platoon in that test if you reduce the experience of the MG. I would say the most likely reason the AI hides all its units on turn 1 is to limit damage from opening barrages. They probably came up with that for CMBB, where it would matter to an Axis AI which doesn't know any better but to control the flags by deploying on top of them and faces a human player with oodles of cheap heavy artillery at his disposal. The AI could also hide its units during the setup phase, but then it passes up the chance to spot any enemy units that are visible right off the bat. With that, the AI would waste its best chance of using its artillery effectively, which is pre-planned against units spotted right after the setup phase. So, the AI starts the game 'up' to try and spot any easy artillery targets, then goes 'down' immediately to minimize damage from opening barrages for itself. Subsequent unhides are handled by the TacAI as they would be for a human player who did not give any orders to his units. [ February 26, 2006, 01:44 AM: Message edited by: Sgt_Kelly ]

Have you thought of surrendering immediately on the first turn and checking whether the AI MG is in hide mode when you look at the map ?

Making sure the AI starts off with flags in possession and padlocking its units doesn't do much to change the behavior. As soon as the AI loses one flag it will send all its units out of their foxholes and streaming towards the lost flag in a doomed attempt to reclaim it. Padlocking does nothing at all, because the AI will set up on and around flags if it can alright, it just won't stay there if any flag is lost.

We're looking for some players for Onion Wars, specifically for the Soviet side. Don't be fooled by the silly name, this is a serious campaign which has covered 16 months of all out war. If you want to get into the groove of operational thinking, it's the place to be.

I use them in urban fights to save ammo and lives. Used well, they eliminate much of the need to assault across open streets. Hide the FT in the rear of the building while your squads pin the enemy. When they've got their heads down, bring up the FT and torch them. Moving on roads and through buildings, the FT's lack of speed is mitigated.

I hope that recon forces will finally come into their own in CMC, where they will indeed be used to 'find out if this map is empty'. A lot of people will get a healthy respect for ACs when they've had a couple of companies in march formation shredded.

Which PzIII ? The later ones with the better armor and the 50mm L/60 (I think) are actually quite a close match for a T-34. In a direct frontal duel they have about the same chance of scoring a penetrating hit. The PzIII will get more hits (especially over 500m) but less of them will be lethal, while the T-34 will get less but more dangerous hits. The key is to achieve many against one situations here. If you get a lot of non-penetrating hits, the T-34 will panic and freeze. That gives your PzIIIs the chance to strike a telling blow. The same goes for T-34s against PzIIIs. Here you want a lot of shots to get a hit.

Care to point out any documented examples from WW2 where a tank has hit another by shooting through the both (and any interior) walls of a 20m deep stone building? When the AFV's don't even have a LOS to eachother? A glitch is a glitch is a glitch. No point in trying to make it look realistic when it is not even meant to happen in the game. It still is very rare, though, so no reason to worry. </font>

Great stuff. Many thanks to all the people who helped to make it possible. CM without the Scenario Depot is like a car without an engine.

The sheer number and accuracy of shells fired by AA guns are deadly to tanks. Multiple AA guns firing on a single tank are almost sure to take it out either through immobilization, gun damage, crew bailing in a panic or a succession thereof. 'Hailfire' from multiple AA guns can take out a monster tank like the KV-2 in 1941 or the Tiger in 1942, when the best AT guns available can't. Some would consider it a gamey tactic though.

JasonC's training scenarios are interesting in that they show how a unit could accomplish a task they might historically be required to perform. Two platoons taking out an MG nest over open ground or some tanks reducing an infantry stronghold. These scenarios are probably historically correct, but are not representative of your typical game of CM. In the typical game, you can expect your opponent to always have an effective response at his disposal. So using units in their most punishing way safe in the knowledge that your opponent can do nothing about it is a luxury you are very rarely afforded. It's one of the interesting things, I find, of this metacampaign I'm involved in ( Onion Wars). There you do see the odd infantry company ending up in **** creek without an AT gun and getting hopelessly shredded by HE from tanks. The hardest part of the game for most new players is to unlearn their natural 'if I have a T-34/85, he will probably have a Panther' reflex and seize an opportunity when it presents itself. [ January 02, 2006, 01:33 PM: Message edited by: Sgt_Kelly ]

You're welcome to disagree. But I've designed dozens of scenarios, a good many of them with more than a battalion of troops for one side. And I always make a point of putting them on the map in an easily recognizable manner for the players. So I'd say I have a bit of experience with it. I think the whole point of CMC is to show how individual company or battalion sized engagements add up to a whole regiment or division being engaged over a more extended area, isn't it ? So while you're ordering a larger amount of troops around on the operational map, I expect the majority of tactical engagements should still be company or battalion sized.

Actually the chaos at the start of battle is not as bad as many people think. If you take a moment you will see that the troops are lined up in a logical fashion and using the group select function it only takes a minute to sort them out. Going from right to left you will first encounter any independent support units. Then come the infantry units. You always get the highest HQ first (e.g. the battalion HQ) and then the companies and platoons in the same order as they appear in the editor. By double clicking on the platoon HQ, you can quickly rearrange them in a way which makes it much easier to identify the individual companies, as suggested by Peterk. I much prefer this to having units already scattered all over the setup zone by the AI or the scenario designer, especially when the briefing doesn't give you a good description of what you have. Reinforcements, especially in operations, are a different matter. These really arrive in an awful mess.

I also rammed a BMW 5 series with a Toyota once, thereby proving once and for all that you can't take out Tigers with T-34s by ramming them. My loader was much the worse for wear after the engagement, while the Tiger crew (reportedly wearing turbans, the fight took place in London) was only dazed.

I once rammed a Lada with a Peugeot during a nightfight in an underground carpark. Guess who won...

The left panel in this screenshot would seem to indicate the status of an ME at the operational level. It shows what I take to be the characteristics of the commander and the 'readiness' rating of the unit. These will probably have some influence on how well the unit reacts to orders, but no sign of morale as such.