Jackson

That was a nice little article. I would only add a few things. First, ATGs and AT teams benefit greatly from experience. Purchase only veteran or better. Second, AT teams are at their best when working in groups, just like AT guns. Hide them together in ambush, or move as many as possible to the target. Three teams have a greater than 300% chance of getting a kill over a single team. Third, the American equivalent to the dreaded 88 is the 90 mm flak gun. When on defense, buy at least two or three of these monsters and keep them in hide-mode until multiple targets are available. Then open up all guns at the same time. Keep enough spacing between them to avoid getting them all killed by the same barrage. Fourth, make sure AT guns are within command radius of an HQ unit. It keeps them from jumping back into their foxholes too early. Finally, once an AT gun has un-hidden itself, don’t even think about hiding it again. The jig is up. Just keep firing at whatever target, hard or soft, comes into range. Hope this is helpful.

This is a very good idea, but probably a little late for CMBO. For slow-turreted tanks I would like to see the TacAI fix on the current target unless an armor threat appears. The swinging back and forth is usually between infantry targets.

Yes, BTS stated some months ago that infantry unit FP is increased with higher experiance levels. I think it could be tested by checking the fire power rating given at the end of the target line when held over a soft target. All of my statements regarding quality are based on posts on this forum. Tests were made regarding FO time-to-target and tank bogging, and they showed no appreciable difference.

1)3 2)8 3)6 4)0 5)0 6)0

Wow, a 2 MB video card will run CM?! You are definately pushing the envelope. What kind of frame rates do you get? Anyway, if you have an nVidia-based graphics card I highly recomend updating your drivers. Here is the best site for downloading past, present and future nVidia drivers: http://progtec.org/drivers/nvidia/

Let's see. Games I have for sale: Panzer General (all of them) Operational Art of War (original) Imperialism Close Combat 3 and 4 Shogun: Total War East Front II Age of Empires (all of them) North and South As for CM, you'll have to pry it out of my cold dead hands!

Ooh, quantity versus quality, good question! First off, let’s dispel some myths regarding higher quality: Forward Observers do not gain any benefit from higher experience other than calm under fire. Tanks do not have a lower probability to bog. HQ units do not have a higher probability for special bonuses. Generally, higher experience improves the following: Rate of fire, calm under fire, gun accuracy (varies), turret speed (slightly, at least for Panthers in my experience), command delay. Infantry gain the most from higher experience. The fire-power is actually increased for infantry units due to the fact that more men are firing, and less are cowering. Squads/teams of veteran or greater can act independent of HQs. AT guns and zooks/schrecks also benefit greatly from higher experience. In a QB (American) having only the choice between regular and veteran, I will spend the extra money on one veteran rifle platoon that will be broken up into half-squads for scouting, and veteran bazooka teams and AT guns. That’s it. For everything else, quantity is better than quality. When playing as the German, the infantry is generally cheaper, so I can afford to make almost all infantry units veteran.

The previous posts are all well written and historically accurate, but, which is the best tank in Combat Mission? I play almost exclusively as American, and therefore find the Panther more suitable to my acquired playing style. There is nothing more frustrating when playing as the German than watching helplessly as my Tiger slowly swings its turret from target to target without actually getting a shot off! However, as the American, nothing strikes more fear in me than seeing a Tiger roll into the fray. It has to be dealt with before any other meaningfull action can take place. So, I have to give the edge to the Tiger. It’s better against infantry, it’s better armored (bazooka-proof), it kills Allied tanks with one shot, and its slow speed is mostly negated due to the small battlefields depicted in CM. The incredibly slow turret speed is something that requires a radical departure from Allied tactics to manage it. The Tiger requires a slow, methodical advance. (IMHO)

1 1) 3 2) 0 3) 9 4) 3 5) 3

With all due respect to the legitimate FAQ information in the first post, it was the funniest thread I've read in a long time. That life-partner thing, and the out-of-control 2-cylinder Daf, had me in stitches. Thank God only the secretary was in the office when I busted a gut!

For those, like Madmatt, who missed this thread due to its rather bland title, I encourage you to visit "FAQ, FAQs, Frequently Asked Questions." Skip the first several posts, then read the... http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/013701.html (This is my first attempt at a thread link, I hope it works.)

LOL! I thought this post would have something to do with the high price of Tigers. At 300,000 ReichsMarks a pop (1944), one would definately have to take out a loan. What's good for the NASDAQ is not necessarilly good for everyone. If you want financial security, get out of debt. Pay off your credit cards, your car loan and your mortgage. Then save money the old fashioned way; stop spending all of it!

I cannot tell you just how happy I am to see the M3A1 halftracks returned to full-squad transports. When it was first announced that M3A1's would only carry half-squads I searched and surfed the Internet for hours trying to find information to refute it, but couldn't find anything. That carlisle site linked above has some great information and "lessons learned." One of the centerpieces of my QB strategy is to keep a mobile infantry platoon in reserve. Then, on about turn 20 to 25, they come riding into the fray with all guns blazing! Talk about turning the tide of battle... ------------------ My plan is the ultimate in “flexibility,” since I make most of it up as I go along!

I’ve visited the website, and read articles in game magazines, and think this is a very interesting concept. I especially like the idea of playing on-line as a “team,” rather than one-on-one. I would have no problem being an infantry grunt, although I think the terrain needs to be thickened up a bit. Let’s face it, who’s better than a CM player at squad-level tactics on the 3D battlefield? We will rule the roost. Let's team up, form a platoon with ScoutPL as the LT (or one of the other real-world commanders on this board), and kick some digital butt!

Sneak is a lot slower than move. I seldom use it.

Pillar, Have you tried testing this occurance? It seems that two opposing squads will pass each other like ships in the night if neither is firing at the other. Try adding waypoints every 10 or 15 meters and see if they stop their movement and open fire. I often set multiple waypoints through two or three forest tiles when I anticipate contact or minefields. However, since starting the practice, I can't recall actually running into a moving enemy, so I don't really know if it works. (It does work against minefields.) ------------------ My plan is the ultimate in “flexibility,” since I make most of it up as I go along!

Me too. Maybe you could send it to Madmatt's CMHQ? I've been waiting for this article as well. Mina's site hasn't been updated since Nov. 16th, and the other site is blank.

Just thought I would give this a bump for those who might have missed it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lordfluffers: 2.) Have area specific scenery, i.e. Orthodox Churches are very different to German ones so create a geographically specific scenery like when fighting in different parts of Russia, Russian scenery sets, and while in Germany, Poland, different scenery sets, althoug obviously some buildings etc would be the same.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I really like this idea. Specific building and terrain sets for different areas of the conflict.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kking199: I also sense an unwillingness here to divulge tactics/strategies to military simulation newbies. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is something that I have noticed also. There are some great players in the Peng thread (and outside of it) that never divulge tactics. I assume it's because they feel they will lose their competitive edge. Or maybe, in their humility outside of the Peng thread, they do not consider themselves "expert" enough to be giving advice. I would love to hear how the experts conduct attacks, scouting, ambushes. What type of force mix they purchase in QBs. That kind of stuff is very interesting to me, and I'm sure it is to a great many lurkers and newbies as well. ------------------ My plan is the ultimate in “flexibility,” since I make most of it up as I go along!

Excellent post. Very well constructed, and full of information. Thanks.

Yeah, the current Canadian model is built by the Diesel Division General Motors of London, Ontario. The new LAV III will be called the Plymouth Growler.

Thanks for the quick reply. In a previous thread it was inferred that the new "wheeled tank" was intended to completely replace the traditional MBT in the next 10 to 12 years. Although, considering DOD procurement and civilian politics, this may take much longer, or not happen at all. What is the "105mm turretless wheeled 'tank'" called? Does it have a designation yet?

Army moves from heavy to medium-weight force. “General Dynamics Land Systems, of Sterling Heights, Mich., makes the LAV III. The Army will order 2,131 of the vehicles.” “The basic vehicle has a top speed of 60 mph, can carry a crew of nine soldiers, and will have either a heavy machine gun or automatic grenade launcher as well as anti-tank missiles. The Army will buy other types of the LAV III designed for command and control, engineering or medical evacuation of wounded soldiers. “ This sounds exactly like the WWII German Army’s intended use of SPW halftracks. You know, a halftrack for every occasion. Exactly how many AT missiles can a LAV III carry, anyway? I think a couple of “medium” divisions is a great idea for quick deployment, but are they seriously considering converting all heavy tracked armor to medium wheeled vehicles? http://www.planetgov.com/pgov/SilverStream/Pages/pgContent.html?KEY=USMC112100&TABPAGE=pgNews.html There are more interesting articles located on the sidebar.

Well, let’s see. Last night the AI dropped 120mm mortar fire on a two story building, killing a machine gun team, an MG Jeep and immobilizing an M4A1 Sherman. Not bad. Last week it dropped scads of 81mm mortar fire on two Bazooka positions. A waste. Also last week the AI dropped 105 mm on an M3A1 Scout Car and an M36 Jackson, killing them both. Damn. Two weeks ago it dropped 300 mm rockets on the top of a hill containing most of my heavy weapons platoon and decimated it. Not bad at all. While the AI does not consistently select the proper targets for artillery attacks, it does a pretty good job overall, and it has come a long way since the Beta. Some additional tweaking may be in order, such as an increased priority for open-topped TDs, but my experience has been that it’s pretty good as it is. One thing that could definitely be improved is its stationing of FOs in unprotected forward positions. My scouts invariably sniff these guys out, but not always before the AI has dropped its load.