Redwolf

Same for me. In fact a "lists" command revealed that this majordomo doesn't know about any list at all (as mine did before I threw it off...).

Excuse me guys. A game not appealing to the general gamer's mind, sold only over the online shop, rarely mentioned in the press. Makes it *into* the top 50? That is an outstanding result. DOOM was a great game, especially for its early multiplayer, BTW, but I guess some things are a matter of taste P.S. is the list online somewhere?

The tank (or better: tank hunter) just looking over the edge and killing something doesn't work good enough in CMBO, IMHO. For one, spotting such a vehicle is too easy for my taste (a camourflaged one moving by inches), a question of game parameters. Then, the absolute spotting in CMBO makes the vehicle the target of too much stuff at once, a solution is very hard, as explained by BTS. I prefer to choose a bunch of fast tanks or no tanks at all (that could also mean a Sherman that always stays hidden unless nothing dangerous is out there anymore). Recon half-squads or moving in force has to be varied, otherwise you get predictable for the opponent. Same for race or let come in MEs. I don't like SMG squads that much. Usually I don't go out without flamethrower vehicles, though SMG squads, SdKFz 7/1 and 7/2 and Axis AA guns are mismodeled, and I don't like to use them because they spoil my victory. On the other hand, I don't use the undermodeled units -MGs, tank destroyers (not Axis Tank hunters)- either. CMplayer, good points. Beside emotional issues, I play *much* better when I care for every single man and am concerned about even a single casuality in my squads. If I don't and concentrate on the "bigger picture" instead, I find myself with too few infantry soon. [ 08-31-2001: Message edited by: redwolf ]

My two cents: The British probably look better because inexperienced users usually choose American. Also they have a very robust and slow tank which may not be suitable for blazing total victories, but you probably see the statistics reflect that this thing doesn't usually get K.O.ed in the first minutes. The Americans work (IMHO) best with a firepower play style, but if you run out of ammo, you are in more trouble than with other nations. While this will not usually happen to most players, considering so many games in a statistics you will see the a number of them dropping the average. The German have the advatage of a greater choice of tools. In a big-base statistics that will show more clearly than in the single games. Also, when the battle is chaotic and infantry/armour coordination falls apart, the Germans have the edge because insolated infantry-vs-infantry and isolated tank-vs-tank they are better. While you may not see that many battles of this kind if you follow single battles, it will still raise a number in a statistic like this.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Specterx: If you're using the Panthers vs 76 rule then the Hellcat is undoubtedly the best choice (for american forces.. still like the Firely/Challenger). It's blazingly fast (55mph?) and has such a fast turret that it can simply run right past Axis heavies and blast them from the side/rear.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Except that the backyard of the Axis player will be full of 20mm guns if you try that often

A player will always get 100% victory if he has all the flags and no own losses. It does not matter how much losses he does to the opponent in that case.

The M10 *can* still be a better choice, simply when it is sufficient. As much as you should not take a Jagdpanther when you know that the Pz IV/70 gun is sufficient, you will surely find ways to spend the extra points in the M10/M36 choice. Especially if you are doing a 1000 points defense or similar critically underpointed stuff. [ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: redwolf ]

I had good success with Jacksons in ladder play. You are usually up against Panzer IV/70, Jagdpanther (if only AFV of opponent) or Hetzer (if he knows you will be American). In all these cases, the 90mm is preferrable to the few tungsten rounds of the M10. The speed is essential as well, since it will allow you to move several TDs into LOS at once after you identified a target. As you say, they are more useful against Infantry as well than the M10, although MGs are not up to MBT standards. And you cannot prevent it from wasting its MG ammo against distant infantry when you would prefer it to safe it for ambushes. Another major drawback is that they are vulnerable to quite small guns. But if you plan to win your points by striking against enemy armour, either for the vehicle kill points or by stripping his infantry of its support, they are one of the better choices.

I am not sure your mathematical analysis applies. If you miss in a gun shot, the measurement you did wrong is usually not the degree of elevation. The elevation is only secondary. What you failed to estimate correctly is the distance. If you mis-estimate the distance by -say- 5%, you end up with different elevation angles misses for guns with different projectile speed. So you are correct that by a mis-elevation of 1 degree you miss less with the slow projectile, but in practice you will not be off by "N" degrees for two different guns. But from the same mis-estimate of distance you will mis-adjust the low-velocity gun by more degrees than a high-velocity gun. Since your target has no height in this case, I am not sure that this leads to the high-velocity be more precise (as it is in hitting a vehicle), but I estimate it is in any case not worse. It is kind of unfortunate that BTS doesn't publish the shell explosion damage model in some more detail. Not to speak of the hit model against vertical and horizontal targets [ 08-29-2001: Message edited by: redwolf ]

You can tell vehicle firepower roughly by comparing the maximum range. You see the maximum range with the target tool, both for vehicles and for MGS teams. Since you get firewpower rating for the MG teams, you tell where the vehicle MG is rated by comparing its range to the range of the teams.

You shouldn't forget that CMBO uses a more complex damage model for HE explosions than the blast value implies. The blast value is just a "summary" for the user's convinience, internally CMBO uses at least a blast value *and* a shrapnel model. You can easily test this by taking a Hummel and a 150mm infantry gun against infantry in foxholes. The inf. gun drives them out of the foxholes in much less time, although it has a lower blast value. So even if the blast value of the 25 pdr is off, you may see more (or less) correct behaviour against other targets.

I think the KT kills in Peiper's KG were from the top of a hill, shooting into the top armour. Some other thread had that info. While I noticed the Jagdpanzer loss figures were for all of July, I still wonder why they are higher than MTB losses for the same period (even if the period covers much more than the combat you describe). Jagdpanzer should usually only operate from cover, from behind the own infantry. So even if they are hit, there is a much better chance to recover them unless the whole front has been pushed back. Compare the MBT, which on the defense will usually have to travel from a reserve position, which will increase the chance of air attack or mechnical breakdown, and -given the low infantry density- meeting unexpected enemy AT-capable forces. Surely, any MBT reserves that sucessfully hit attacking forces would continue with a counterattack bejond the own infantry line, where they might break down outside recovery reach. Maybe the Jagdpanzer were not really used as doctrine would tell, that was that I was wondering about. Surely Bayerlein isn't the kind of general who just doesn't understand the limitations of Jagdpanzers. But maybe he is and/or was forced for unusual uses, so any further info on the Jagdpanzer's usage would be greatly appreciated.

Your posts get really excellent, a few quick thoughts (I regret not having more time these days): I wonder why the losses in Jagdpanzer were greater than in MBTs. From the description of these battles, they only tangled with the Shermans attacking elsewhere while German armour was busy tangling with U.S. rearguard and TD forces. 40 Jagdpanzer used in the defensive loosing 30 of them. The majority of them seems to be lost in the fighting that the U.S. reports 12 lost Shermans for. And in that timeframe few if any of the Shermans could have been 76mm armed. What happend? Artillery, naval guns, planes? Your remark that tank dueling ability is more useful on defense in combination with rather useless front plates, triggers another question for me. Maybe a "breakthough" tank which does't only have a thick front plate, but also thick sides, is more useful in such a situation than is slowness would imply? Obviously, I am referring to the Tigers, but also to the KV tanks. BTW, it's "Jagdpanzer", not "Jadgpanzer".

Give a target order and then let it hide again, with target order in effect and head down. That will cause them only to unhide when *this* vehicle comes into a good shooting position. I am not sure a 88 Flak will find a Jumbo worth shooting at at higher distances, maybe they will remain hidden. But in any case they will not shoot on the Stuarts even as they come into LOS or drive near an ambush marker (the alternative). Hide with target order in effect, it's in the manual IIRC.

A few other points: The 150mm infantry gun drives infantry out of foxholes much faster than the 150mm howitzer in the Hummel. Remember that the blast value is just an abstraction for the player, CMBO calculates with finer gradiances of shrapnel effect etc. Lets to be desired, though, since BTS doesn't tell enough details (I found this one by trying). And the British 95mm. should have the same effect, but doesn't in CMBO. The higher blast applies straight when knocking down buildings. The infantry guns are easier to spot that comparable higher velocity guns. [ 08-21-2001: Message edited by: redwolf ]

Another point to consider is the relative strength you estimate for you and the opponent. If you assume your opponent to be equal or less capable than yourself, you cannot rush in, since a bit of bad luck will ruin your game, i.e. lower the win chance by a wide margin. If you assume your opponent to be stronger, you need some mean to get him off-balance. Of course, if you rush in, you still need good luck. However, if you *have* good luck, a rush will allow you to explore it. A slow approach will statistically level out the "luck" to your initial weaker chances. There are other things to consider if you assume your opponent to be stronger, especially unit choices.

The "buy transport with guns if you are attacker or in an ME" rule is from the Combined Arms League at tournamenthouse.com. Unless all the other CAL rules apply I don't see a reason why that should be default in a game.

The thread didn't carry BTS explanation, which was buried in the 75mm vs. 81mm thread, IIRC. The problem is that accidentially no direct hits of HE against unarmoured vehicles are being computed.

Regarding the German designations: The designations "Panzerjaeger" and "Jagdpanzer" have just the two subwords exchanged, but nontheless they mean entirely different things, grammatics-wise. "Panzerjaeger" says "this is something that hunts a tank", but it does not say what this thing is or that this thing is itself a tank. It may be a duck trained to hit tanks. "Jagdpanzer" says "this is a tank that hunts something", explicityly saying what kind of thing it is, but not saying anything about what it hunts. This one could hunt ducks. The Panzerjaeger are the thin-skinned Marder and Nashorn things. The Jagdpanzer are the ones with the thick front plates. The thin-skinned Panzerjaeger must essentially used like a towed gun (only that it can hit the road when things get nasty). But while the Jagdpanzer is built to be able to withstand hits from enemy tanks, from what I read the usage was exactly the same. Drive around behind the infantry in cover and shoot tanks that show up to support the enemy infantry. Active roles were the duty of tanks with turrets. On the other hand, often you have to use what's available.

Up to 100m the Bazooka is more precise, above that the PIAT. You can check the hit cheance display with the LOS tool in the editor when puling it over a tank.

Hm, Fionn 76, 1250 points, the opponents chose flat map and Allied force, but normal tree covarage. If the opponent follows a strict plan, I bet he will move in with thick Churchills. One or two long 88 or long 76 are required, IMHO, towed, SP or in a tank. Since he may also have 17 pdr or similar guns, the towed ones might be preferrable. Also AA guns are very useful as long-range anti-gun guns, they work better than mortars. If all fails, the AA guns may try to damage the tanks before their ruin your infantry. You might face bigass 95mm Churchills dominating the flag area(s), guarded by high-end AT guns behind them. Since he will probably undiscover the Churchills only when you sit on the flags to maximize the damage, it might be a worthwhile tactic for you to do an agressive recon opening to undiscover what he hides in his setup area. On the other hand, his parameter choice may mean that he simply plans to blast you away with heavy guns, especially 105mm howitzers, maybe Priests and/or by artillery. Buy AA equipment, the raised hit chance means that you usually win duels with normal AT or HE guns. In any case, there are some clear no-no's for this game: - do not rush the flags and stay out of buildings in LOS of his setup area. You could as well make holdidays on a Milzbrand island - be extremly careful with your vehicles, better have vehicles that do recon by catching projectiles. It is questionable that vehicles are good in this situation at all All this applies only when your opponent is a CM player optimized for points. If both of you are into realistic gameplay, Jason's recommendations sound good, although it is not obvious to me that the halftracks will make it to their destination. I fear they will be hit and the weapons they carry destroyed and -worst- the crews captured. Anyway, let us know how it goes and what the opponent had!

I like the Jackson. It is a good anti-tank vehicle and late in the game it is good against infantry since it has a high-blast gun in a comparibly fast turret. When playing Axis, I always have trouble approaching vehicles with Schrecks when a Jackson does overwatch. Because of its comapribly fast turret, it can be nearer to the enemy forces while covering the same angle. [ 06-29-2001: Message edited by: redwolf ]

Maybe it would be a good idea that you can buy a camouflage set for an AFV in unit selection? Make it 30 points or so and it gives the vehicle the spottability of a gun before firing, a bit more when firing and none after moving. It opens the usual TacAI can of worms, though, since you will be upset when the tank moves just a few meter to back off behind its own smoke or when a turretless tank hunter turns.

Steve, would it be possible to implement an "abadon weapon" command for heavy weapons like guns, mortars and MGs? When a heavy weapon is threatend to be overrun or the game is approaching autosurrender, I want to evacuate the crew at infantry speed. For most heavy weapons, the crew costs more victory points than the weapon even when killed, not to speak of getting captured. In the past, I fired mortars at my own guns to get the effect, but that costs ammunition I want to spend otherwise It seems to me that this is easy to implement for CMBB.

Both infantry guns are easier to spot than other comparable guns. That why the 75mm is so cheap and the 150mm is affordable. Tactics-wise comparing the 75mm howitzer and the 75mm infantry gun, I think that the infantry gun is the better choice for the inner defenses that open fire late at storming infantry directly in front. But that the howitzer is better for gun positions that guard areas by long-range fire (usually earlier in the game). Not that this matters when you can't see the map in advance [ 06-29-2001: Message edited by: redwolf ]