wie201

It would help, I have to agree.

I think that this is a great game, no doubt. For me, the more realism the better. The issue is the accuracy of the infantry's reaction to MG fire while attempting the follow orders and secure a specific objective. Dizee posted that his troops broke and ran with only two casualties. In the same scenario L4Pilot and I are playing, I assume his casualty figures might have been higher, but not by much. However, I made the mistake of running a platoon of troops a short distance across an area I thought was secure, and took over 50 percent casualties in 60 seconds, but my troop's morale was still fine when the reached their objective. Why is it that troops running a short distance but taking extraordinary losses should not panic when troops assaulting a position (and assumedly prepared to take losses) take few casualties but break within 60 to 90 seconds? In the book "In Flanders Fields" by Leon Wolff, you hear stories about British, Canadian and ANZAC soldiers assaulting concrete pillboxes in mud up to their knees with poison gas swirling about. Sure, it is extraordinary that they advanced, but the fact is is that they did. My point is that if you set up the same scenario with this engine, I do not believe they would succeed because the vast majority of the assaulting force would be in full retreat long before they reach the MGs.

As the recipient of L4Pilot's Katyusha barrage and 120mm mortar fire, I thought that his assault was well coordinated. After the Katyusha barrage, only ten percent of my forces were available to meet his initial assault when his troops literally appeared out of the smoke. My MGs were up front, with troops in reserve to counter-attack (all very World War One-ish) The front line MGs had more effect than I expected. His troops dropped, a few opened fire, and after two minutes the majority were heading back. A few tried to crawl forward, but none really moved forward more than 10 meters after they dropped (if that far). His five platoons were supported by two SU-152's, and because this was a probe, my forces were not dug in, but did have some woods. Also, his forces had not received any fire up until the assault. In effect, 10 percent of my forces in unprepared positions stopped at least half (if not much more) of his forces after a heavy blasting by Arty. It just seems that the advancing forces should have stayed pinned a little longer and tried to suppress the MGs before heading back across the field, this time without the benefit of smoke.

Ah ha! I suspected as much.

I'll be there. Can't drink however. Curse the need for medication.

done as well!

Sorry to tell you this Gpig, I think your copy of CM just appeared on eBay. By the way, she's selling your collection of Playboys as well

Its based on a computer game I played several times, over the course of a few years. War in Europe, Version 2.01

Uh, yes well . . . Kinda reminds you of those old horror movies where, before going into a room, one person tells the other "you go first." I would hate to have been one of the ones going first here. If the guys in the foxhole were hit by this wall of bullets, I can't imagine much in front of it getting through unscathed.

5 1) 3 2) 4 3) 30 4) 13 5) 14

I believe Reverend Jerry Falwell, when asked, said that there was no sex in Heaven. No sex and no CM. Oh, why bother.

Good luck with this. I'd like to be part of it as well. Prefer Americans, but will take anything. Thanks! e-mail (you know me) is dhunt1@cox.rr.com

If we can set it up in Virginia on a Friday, I'm in. Don't know much about the places around Tyson's. If anyone does, please suggest a location.

Honestly, I never would have thought of that one. I will give it a try. Thanks!

Thanks Gremlin. This is what I thought (and was afraid of). Looks like its "over the top" for this third squad. I hate losing a situational advantage, as that third squad is well placed for another maneuver next turn or two. But the tank is a priority for now.

Did a search, can't find the exact answer to this. Is there a way for a unit to lay down covering fire without just using the area targeting command? Short example: A platoon is at the edge of the woods in front of a village. Two squads are targeting a squad directly in front on a ridge about 100 meters away, while a third and a MG have a line of sight to that enemy squad. However, I want that third squad and MG to cover for a bazooka team that will make a run towards the village, but who will set up at the top of the ridge short of any buildings to get a side shot at a tank moving down the street. Since there "may" be enemy troops in the buildings the bazooka will be approaching, is there any way to have the third squad and MG react to any fire upon the bazooka team, instead of waiting a few seconds, then having the Tac/AI target the enemy squad the other two squads have already engaged? Assume that the enemy squad being targeted by the other two squads is well suppressed, and does not pose a danger to the third squad, MG, or the bazooka team. Thanks!

Lawyer, VA works better for me as well, but Fridays in DC is an option. Just let me know. Thanks.

Another Federal employee here, who also lives in Fairfax. Would be interested in hosting face-to-face network games if anyone is interested. I am spending the weekend fishing ethernet lines through the house (my wife is tired of me running lines through the foyer). If all goes well (and I don't do any permanent damage to the house) I should have 4 computers on-line on a network, connected to a router with cable internet access. With one refrigerator dedicated to my beer and wine supply, what else do we need? And yes, I am broke . . . bring your own chips

Avalon Hill's Bismarck, late 60s'.

I agree with the point made by Stellar earlier, to attack a real threat with actual knowledge than one the TC may not know about. Remember, we all know the ratios when we set up a QB, so we know that yes, I have seen 500 points of an enemy, but I know he has another 1000 points out there ready for me, so I better not swing my hull around. Not realistic. Also, about engaging targets on either flank and possibly not shooting at either. For me this is fine for the Tac/AI to do this on occasion. My rationale is that in the heat of a battle, you cannot always make a cool, calculating decision. If it were me, I would probably swing wildly left and right trying to shoot at anything that moved as fast as I could. Even Napoleon (not a great analogy, perhaps) couldn't get an entire corps to fight at Ligney or Quatre Bras, and he had a lot more time than one minute to decide. I take it as the attempt by BTS to try and replicate what happened on the field.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Brian: I don't understand this. My opponents units could actually target my Ambush Marker? Or, are my target lines no longer seen? Basically, what was this about? Thanks in advance! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have seen it a few times. Enemy units would set up an ambush, and target the ambush marker waiting for you to "trip" it. If they enemy moved, and you sighted them moving, then you would see a target line from the enemy unit to the ambush marker, so you would see where the enemy's ambush area was. I only saw the ambush marker when the enemy moved, never when the enemy was stationary.

I have had frequent underestimations, so I always assume the worst until I get a positive ID. Learned this the hard way.

Full, always.

Well, I guess this is just a case of to each his own. Some players prefer to play against members who fight as they thought the war was actually fought; others play to win regardless of whether the tactic was common, extremely rare, or "gamey." I prefer to play attempting not to lose a single soldier, while annihilating the enemy. And Polar, although I don't ring up any great winning percentages doing it this way, it is fun for me, and is what I am looking for. It may not be as fun or interesting for you or others, and that is fine. But for me, I am more interested in understanding what went on and why to the extent that CM can do that. When I see unrealistic or "gamey" tactics being used against me, my fault for not clarifying the parameters of the game I want to play with my opponent to see if he is in agreement, or if would prefer not to play me, which is fine.

I agree that the "win at all costs" attitude is the primary cause of gamey play. Ladder games, in particular, get the competitive spirits going, and when you see someone steaming along with a dozen victories in a row, you just want to be the one to break the streak. In non-ladder games I have found the tactics used to be more genuine, although some people, including myself, will experiment with tactics that they would not use in a ladder game. I think that this is fine, as history is replete with failed tactics and, unfortunately, sometimes the only way one could be sure whether they would work or not was against a live enemy. Compared to other PBEM games I have been involved in, however, I think that even the ability to use gamey tactics in CM is much less likely than other programs. I have not seen a gamey tactic listed yet that would be the sole or even the primary cause of losing a battle, extremely annoying as they are.