Redwolf

Pz IV and other tanks with 75mm L/48, especially in Fionn-75 games: Open editor, study hit chances (displayed in LOS tool in editor) for various distances against Allied 75mm (Sherman, Cromwell, Churchill). Think again over optimal distances. %% Panther: More vulnerable than you think. While the danger from 76mm guns is obvious, it also has problems with HE barrages to the sides, i.e. when you try to overrun a group of M8 HMC. Buy in groups unless used only from ambush. %% Tiger: More vulnerable than you think. Weak spot penetration and you are toast. A HE shell to the turret and you have gun damage. Good side armour, though, good enough for a counterattack into enemy territory, a least you have a chance. Using weaker vehicles as bodyguards for such a Tiger run (i.e. 20mm halftrack) will usually have the weaker vehicles being stripped from the Tigers for no result, not advertised. As with all tanks, unless used for defense only, do not buy unless you can buy three or four, so that the loss of one still leaves a group with useful flank protection. When Tigers are bought in a group, you can move with some freedom when U.S. 76mm guns are present unless it's tungsteen time. 17 pounder and 90mm is always nasty. %% Hetzer, StuG, Jagdpanzer IV and Jagdpanther. Unless used like a gun (defense, ambush), you need an even bigger group of these than for normal tanks. If for turreted tanks your minimum number is three, buy four of these, if it is four for normal tanks, buy five of these. Should you think I'm insane for the platoon requirement, a single turretless tank is in any case worse than a single turreted tank. For Jagd-anything, watch MG ammo. For Jagdpanther, read the Guderian order posted here lately, about Jagdpanther unit usage. Should apply to Jagdpanzer IV as well. %% Wespe, Hummel, Marder, Nashorn: Use like guns, not like tanks. Except it is a gun that hits the road after hitting. Buy LMG team or other bodyguard. %% Halftracks: Due to the allied .50cal, you have to move them like infantry, rushing from cover to cover. OK, in theory all tank should move like this, but for the Halftracks it is most essential. The danger for the halftracks is so great that buildings and woods turn into an advantage. Treat .50cal MG intantry teams like AT guns. They really are. 500m knockout to front of halftrack, more than 1000m for sides. .50cal on Jeep MG is less dangerous due to worse mount, but if it flanks you, you are toast as well. Move halftrack groups in columns to give cover to each other, not side-by-side. %% The HE from the high-velocity 75mm (Panther) and 88mm doesn't look that impressive, but it is quite special: It is very precise. You can expect to knock out a single target (i.e. a gun) on first or second shot or long distances. Very fast projectile. You have one or two seconds less than for normal HE-throwing guns. Good news if the target can shoot back as long as it isn't hit. %% Things to watch: Cromwells. The HC charge from a 95mm British gun is more effective than one from a 105mm howitzer. The 95mm Cromwells are very fast and can ruin your day by first running to the flanks of your armour, shoot their HC charges and then use their HE-intensive gun on your infantry. Tungsteen of course. Make sure that you know the Tungsteen amount for the month you play. 3 inch mortars knock out Pz IV and StuG with top hits. Bofors AA gun. Extremly precise. %% I am currently in a kind of mental armour crises from playing too many games where people max out unit choices and you rarely see normal armour in such games, because it is too vulnerable unless used right. Using right means foremost buying at least a platoon from it. Since that is too expensive for anything but very high-poinnt games, you rarely see halfway normal tanks in such games. In such "max-out" games for result (I don't mean that negative), only some Axis armour can be effective. People have big requirements for large amounts of HE shells to unload on enemy infantry after the armour battles are over or it is clear that enemy armour doesn't move anymore due to battlefield gun infection. Such HE throwers are 251/9, 250/9 (also effective against Allied halftracks) and Wespe. Some people use Hummels, but it is quite risky because it is even more vulnerable. And the StuH. The other kind of armour effective in such games are surviable tank hunters with good guns to get rid of enemy armour. For good enough survivability it is a strict requirement to have a small silhuette besides good, sloped armour. StuG and Jagdpanzer IV can show up here. Hetzer as well, but risky due to vulnerability to .50cal MG, team player. The StuH is often chosen because it is the only tank offering this kind of survivability in combination with HE-intensive shells. It also offers some HC charges that might be enough in a game where few armour shows up anyway. The Jagdpanther is risky, since a 200 points investment in one tank isn't usually done under such circumstances. Compared to two StuGs, these 200 points effetivly face 2-4 times the risk of weak spot penetration or gun damage. On the other hand, the 88 has -besides the obvious AT capability- a useful HE capability and this tank comes with more than 30 shells (as much as a King Tiger with the same gun). Of course, you must not expose it due to not having a turret and general risk for a lone tank, but overall it is a surprisingly good tank for such result-oriented small games (2000 points is still small), since it works in two roles. Some people swear by the Tiger, but for me they are usually shot too often and suffer weak spot penetration or gun damage when I try to use them offensivly. And it is too expensive to use as a gun/bunker at the end of the map. [ 05-25-2001: Message edited by: redwolf ]

Veteran has about 8-10% more of everything, hit chance, time to first shot, rate of fire etc. If I'm not mistaken (seen it myself and there was a thread about it), in a tank duel, the veteran unit may fire later, though. This is because the regular or green unit gets a hasty first shot off while the veteran takes time to aim. If the regular's first shot is lucky, that may cause grief, of course. Veteran AFV are also less likely to be abanoned when penetrated or immobile. How many "abadoned" not "knocked out" tanks did have lately? Some of them could be still running with veteran or better crews. I agree that veteran clearly does not pay off for AFV that are not meant to duel with other AFV. For those who do, however, I think that veteran ist not enough, amoung the reasons is the time-to-first-shot issues describben above. I would either optimize the price of the whole force to get a tank more or otherwise build a tank hunter detachment that really does the job, crack that means.

I could track down flamethrower not firing problems to friendly units near it. They need nearly 180 degrees free in front of them for the first few meters, and still great angles up to their maximum range. Any friendly unit in these areas will make them holf fire (and stand up so that they are shot...).

I don't know of any previous thread, but several aspects come to mind: Of course, you might use the mortars with a spotting HQ, not exposing them. 3" mortars are easier to knock out because of the small crew. Abadon is a different issue, though, veteran helps here. It also helps to have mortars deep enough in the woods so that LOS is possible *only* to the target, but not other positions left and right of the target. Be careful with the crews of KOed mortars, they are very valuable victory-point wise.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wreck: I know for a fact, having chatting with them, that the top six players on that ladder think that Germans are easier.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I certainly agree that they are easier, but I am not sure easier means superiour. Let me illustrate: as the Germans, you have infantry that is usually superiour to Allied infantry when moved with basic tactics, just choose the right distance, maybe with basic supression. Not only the SMG stuff, but MP44-equipped squads like Panzergrenadiere as well. Axis Tanks are for each of the Fionn rules equipped with superiour guns and will be good used against allied armour that tries to mess with the infantry battle. As the U.S., you have to rely on firepower. You can use your infantry only after an effective supression. And many supression tools for the U.S. come in slow forms, big arty, cheaper Shermans on anything but roads, the 105mm howitzer is almost impossible to move in-game etc. Often your tanks have to doge Axis tanks and gun for many turns, that costs time as well. At the very least, you need to invest thought to not come into armour clashes or if so with proper tank platoon tactics. Point is, U.S. needs more complex interaction between units which have vastly different timing requirements. That is not easy to do, as my TCP games show. Of course, the German player shouldn't ignore these support units as well. But -and that is the point here- if both players neglect them to an equal degree, the Axis come out on top, both for the infantry battle and for the armour clashes and other support is usually wasted insuch games. As the Commonwealth, you need an even more complicated interaction between units and the infantry is really sub-standard. Please see the currently running new players guide for more of my views on the issue. Jason's and other people's view on SMG squads come into play here as well. People like Fionn claim these are not a problem, because they use their rifle squads in coordination with other units that will roll all over enemies with too short-ranged firepower. There are some things really in German favour - that the infantry killing mechanism is abused for a tracked vehicle with a 37mm gun - The cheap guns, especially Pueppchens But both can be removed from a game, even on ladders. And I could list a number of allied units where the Germans have inferiour counterparts.

[posting corrected] I have checked what mortar crews are worth: 6 (maybe 7) points/man regular and 8/men veteran. Having a veteran 81mm mortar knocked out and all 6 men captured brings about 128 points. I am in a round of checks how much points special stuff like crew is worth, i.e. for artillery spotters. Anyone has something he likes me to check while I'm at it? [ 05-14-2001: Message edited by: redwolf ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B: Where did you find this information at? I've been trying to find the FP ratings for vehicle MGs for months.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Quick check: maximum range (in "target" command). Slower check: supression of infantry squad in foxhole (watch globale morale effects when testing all in one pass, tough)

Request: I need a unicolor Panther G or G late, preferrably the dark yellow that was the base for later German tanks. I'd like to try my own camouflage, but I can't paint all the details of the tank. I see lots of mods for these tanks that are great from a modeling standpoint, but where I don't like the camo. Thanks. BTW, I agree about KwazyDog's Tiger, simply great

You know that you can embark them during setup?

For the 251/1, CMBO models it as twice as powerful as MG42 LMG, half as MG42 HMG. 34 or 42 isn't that important, the mount is, CMBO seems to assume the vehicle mount is between the bipod and tripod. Sounds right to me, but I am no MG expert.

You are comparing vehicles and non-vehicles. That doesn't allow conclusions for more or less mobile infantry units.

Beside much other stuff, this thread has a lot of information about on-map mortars, what to do with them and especially what not. http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=018949 Another important point is not to expect mortars to take out infantry. They are great for supression, but if you don't follow up with sharper units it is quite useless.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by engy: 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. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It is sad that this must be considered unfair. It is a very valid tactic, IMHO, to clear the path for an own counterattack and of course you target likely move paths of the enemy. But a counterattack is most effective early in the game and then you *have* to target right before the setup zone of the opponent and he may not like that, in the game sense. BTW, the reported 45 seconds for the regular 150mm rockets are usually extended to more than a minute in real games where the TRPs lay somewhere and the FO is in a house or so.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wreck: At some point I plan to test this.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I did. Mortar experience and HQ combat value (not experience) add up lineary to the fall radius of the shells. Regular without help has a hard time to directly hit a vehicle or a gun, but pushing even one of the factors by one is a big help. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> What? 80 points no way. A vet 81mm costs 33 points. That's the most you risk, barring capture, and even then it is 66. Yes, it is worth going for any unit if you can do so cheaply. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You didn't notice that I was referring to killed members of the crew after the mortar is knocked out. A crew member regular is worth 5 points or so if killed. Make veteran one or two more, multiply by 6 (men in 81mm team) and you see that killing the crew is about the same as knocking out the mortar. [My understanding is limited, though. The 5 point number is from a tank crew member, didn't test for a mortar crew (Steve, are all crew members worth the same?). And some mechanism will (hopefully) ensure that capturing the mortar intact is worth more than knocking it out and then capturing the crew.] But the numbers are most likely in the right ballpark. If your mortar gets knocked out, you can about double the damage to your victory level by mishandling the crew. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> However, unless your opponent is playing badly, it is usually hard to kill his mortars before they fire (76mm excluded) since they have so little ammo.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> For victory points it is irrelevant how much ammo the unit has left. Of course, if you have the choice you should go after a unit that is still capable of fighting. That way you get two positive effects, points for the knockout and reduced combat value of the opponent force. But -and that is the only point I made- victorypoint wise the empty mortar brings as much points as the fresh one. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And after they are out of ammo, they should move back to the rear and be prepared to exit, to avoid any raids into the rear by the enemy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Exactly. But you underestimate *how* important that is (and still is to do with the crew after the mortar is knocked out). And hence how much potential damage to your victory level the slowness of the 3" mtr causes. The fact that they cannot flee from the battlefield unless circumstances are very fortunate or you invest time of a vehicle (with transport class 4!) is one of the factors why I think the 3" mortar is not badly underpriced. Imagine an on-map battery of mortars, two or three mortars and a Company HQ. Killing it including the crew brings about as much victory points as a small flag. And hence the immobility of the 3" mortar is a big disadvantage, because it needs a bodyguard or transport near it. And one halftrack can carry both 81mm mortars, but doesn't cut it for two 3" mortars. I hope that illustrates why I am not that concerned about the 3"mtr price as it is. But as I said, I think an overwhelming part of the CM community would be more happy if it gets 5 men and its price is raised by 10 points, accepting the reality stretch for the universal carrier. [ 05-12-2001: Message edited by: redwolf ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by yobobo@TH: It was neutral at the end game result. But like I said, I owned it, my guys in it, and all around it. My opponent even said, Hmm strange.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In that case you have neutral flag and as you said compable losses. Then you get the draw. The only question left is - why did the flag switch to neutral at the opponent's rush? CMBO switches a flag to neutral when any significant enemy unit is near. I don't know exaclty what a significant unit is but lets say an intact squad is. So, if one intact squad is at the flag, it is neutral and it does not matter how many units you have at the flag. It is *not* the relative strength at the flag that counts. If he has this squad (or whatever minimum is) at the flag, you can have 20 Jagdtigers around it, it is neutral. [ 05-12-2001: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[double post, flood prtection runs amock] [ 05-12-2001: Message edited by: redwolf ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by yobobo@TH: If we both have 800 points and I exit and or only buy lets say 600 points worth of crap, will I gain an advantage? Since my 200 points are safe and all. This is off on a different subject and the guy I played is a good straight up player. In no way am I saying this was done...but can it be done?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That is not an advantage, only kills or captured counts, the starting force size does not. Exited units count as if they are alive on the battlefield and have no influence on victory level. If the flags are captured by one player and no losses on either side occured, he wins 100%, so you either have to go after the flags or you have to inflict enough casualities that flags do not matter. But if you want to be tricky against a player you don't have a chance against, you can do this: In a 1000 pt battle, buy only artillery, airplanes and max out tank points for tank destroyers and one fat SP gun. You cannot spend all your points but lets say 500 out of 1000 points. You don't plan on taking the flags from start. You empty the artillery on what seems most valuable and you run your tank destroyers to get as much of his valuable vehicles as you can. While you do, his armour cannot defend his infantry, which you unload your SP gun on. Then you withdraw all units you still have from the map, after you stayed around for long enough for the figther-bomber to do its work. Victory level: you knocked out 400 points from him, for typicall a loss of 400 points (1:1 trades). In 1000pt games, there are usually 300 points in flags and he holds all of them. Thus he wins, but only 700:400, that is far from the major defeat you would suffer when trying to push a far superiour player from the flags.

Jason's explanition is not quite right, at least not worded right. You don't add life guys anywhere. You add damage inflicted (incl. caputred units that count more) plus flags held to three parties, you, opponent, neutral. That's it, alive guys are irrelavant. The force size you started with is also irrelevant.

Steve, another question on price logic: the .50cal MG team is quite expensive for the ammo load and I am assuming it is to a major part because a large number of Axis vehicles are vulnerable to it. I wonder why the extra .50cal on the M3A1 and M5A1 halftracks compared to the M3 and M5 is very cheap. You pay 5 points to upgrade the halftrack to whatever the advantages of a .50cal team over a -say- Vickers team are. I guess you make a .50cal on a vehicle quite cheap because otherwise all other vehicles that carry the .50cal would suffer an unfair price raise. Assuming I am correct, I would propose the following partial solutions: - for M3A1 and M5A1, seperate the ammo load of the hull MG and the .50cal, like it is already done for other vehicles - if you do, add a "use main" gun command to vehicles that have two different MGs but no main gun, while you are at it, otherwise the .50cal use must be controlled by buttoning - whatever the price of an extra .50cal on a vehicles is, the price should be higher when the .50cal will make the best weapon on the vehicle, while it should be lower if the vehicle has a main gun and hence is a threat to Axis thin armour anyway - that would make a price raise for Jeep MG and T8 Recon, but given their anti-armour capability I think that is OK. It can also be balanced out with the ammo load and associated pricing I have to say that I don't care about pricing that much as others obviously do. Why I question the .50cal price on vehicles nontheless is that the battlefield gets extremly shaped with regards to possible movement of Axis halftracks. That is histrically right, but the Allied player should have to pay for this effect. They pay right when buying M2 teams, but they don't pay right when they shape the battlefield by upgrading harmless vehicles. [ 05-12-2001: Message edited by: redwolf ]

Wreck, for the observer I usually choose a HQ with extra combat, not extra command. A regular mortar with a normal HQ has difficulties to hit a vehicle or a gun. A veteran mortar or a 1+ command HQ raise this noticable, in my opinion one of them is required to make mortar fire effective against targets other than infantry. To several people: having an empty mortar knocked out still has a noticeable effect on victory level, since you loose the points the unit costs and maybe even the crew. For a veteran 81mm mortar that can add up to 75-80 points if the crew is killed and even more if the crew is captured. That approches the value of a small flag.

To contribute some playing experience here, I usually play Allies, U.S and British equally often and I always play with lots of mortars and formed an impression about the 81mm and 3" units. The 3" mortar is noticable easier to knock out from enemy units that more or less accidentially stumble over them, or when the building they cover behind explodes, especially since it cannot flee as fast as the 81mm. Its lower mobility and the requirement for the whole of a halftrack is a big disadvantage. Also, while I can usually spend most of my ammo, much of the ammo is wasted when using a spotting HQ since firing doesn't stop when the target is eliminated, so the higher load of 3" mtr ammunition cannot be seen as a linear raise of blast value. In my opinion, the prices of 26 and 36 points sound right relative to each other considering the men given (and that is not an ...kissers remark). As the teams are. But the 3 men team for the 3" mtr still doesn't sound right to me, although I re-read the whole thread carefully. I think that the universal carrier changed to be able to carry a 5-man team with a mortar (and upgrading the 3" mortar crew to 5 men with associated price raise) is the lesser stretch of history and better for gameplay. I have to admit that I don't understand the transport ability logic fully. The 3" mortar is already class 4 with its 3 men and the 81mm is class 3 with 6 men. What is the problem of making the 3" mortar having 5 men and the same transport class (that already fits on the carrier)? I really like the idea of "semi-mobile" mortar teams that have lots of ammo for the price and number of men and loose much of it when moving. That would make defense a little easier, but from what I have seen, people tend to assume it is harder for now than the attacker's role. I also agree with Wreck that mortars in general might be a bit cheaper. For their usefulness can be reduced drastically by short visibilty. Ramdom weather and time can lead to less than 100m and they are very hard to use then, while guns still suffer only linear. Extra question: does the 3" mtr in CMBO have a different shrapnell development that makes its anti-infantry capability different than the 81mm, relative to blast value? [ 05-12-2001: Message edited by: redwolf ]

If BTS offered a "CMBO B", I would pay full price again and would think many would pay at least half price, if: - a new bug fixing round starts, especially smoke rounds fired for effect and setup spotting - mortar vehicles can use spotting HQ and British get mortar vehicle (3" on universal carrier) - add some missing units that are important for balanced gameplay, like quad .50cal - penetration table for .50cal and MG42 is published - kill mechanism of unarmoured vehicles (SdKfz 7/1 and 7/2) is publically discussed and maybe fixed with increased effect of near-hit HE rounds or something and (thats what I would really pay for) We get an interface to import new vehicles with geometry, bmp filenames, weapons, speed etc. Specialities like curved armour, Tiger front turret etc. don't need to be available, but we also need our own main gun definitions. Yes, that would enable us to make all periods of the war ourself, but not really since new ground types etc. would not be available and we would still have no AT rifles, guns, squads types that would be required for an exact play of earlier war periods. I think that just vehicles with existing MGs and imported new gun types (U.S. 155mm) would be a nice feature that doesn't compromise BTSs too much. Also, I assume that CM2 will have much improved mechanisms that would still make it and it successors more attractive.

No way Bill gates will get my copy. And I really hope he doesn't get one of those misguided mailings from BTS On the other hand, maybe then he doesn't have time to develop interesting strategies in the software^H^H^H business field anymore. Assuming that ebay survives a nuclear war makes me frighten. I wouldn't have a problem to give a year of food, CM eats a year of my life anyway.

While I personally don't complain about Axis tanks being too dangerous (have sufficient tactics so that it isn't a problem anymore), I can maybe contribute one point why other players are annoyed: For each game level (Fionn recon, short 75, long 76, heavy tanks), the Germans have the best gun when it comes to AT. The 75mm L/48 is clearly better than the Allied 75mm, the long 88 better than the 90mm, the Puma gun that the 37mm etc. In practice that means that at a tank meeting the Germans have the advantage that they get a lower ricochet chance for bigger angles, assuming similar armour. So, if you are in mostly for tank battles, or think that mixed battles are decided in initial tank clashes, you are probably not satisfied with the Allied tanks.

yobobo, did CM gave you the flag or was it neutral? As crisl said, once losses are high, flags don't do much to victory anymore. [ 05-12-2001: Message edited by: redwolf ]