[Map size & area for armor to maneuver?]

In another thread (found via search), it was stated that the play area for a scenario is about 2kmx2km subsections of larger maps.

I was just curious if that provides enough room for armor to effectively maneuver to best advantage in a scenario?

Thanks.

[So what's wrong with TOAW from a CM'ers standpoint?]

JasonC,

Greetings! I read here a lot more than I post. Yours often tend to provide some of my favorite reading, since I tend to learn a lot.

I realize that the topic of this thread is TOAW, but since you have broadened it a bit to discuss other models of ground combat simulation (although all appear to be turn/hex oriented), I did want to ask you opinion of another system. Assuming you know the system, if you can find the time, I would be interested to have you respond in some detail as to what you think works (simulates reality) properly and what does not.

The system in this case is the Airborne Assault engine. Currently, three games have been produced off this code base: RDOA (originally published by Battlefront), HTTR (Matrix), and COTA (Matrix) with a BFTB (Matrix) currently under development. Admittedly, the model of game play is very different: no turns, no hexes, hiearchical chain of command with delegation to AI subordinates, and order delays. Myself, I am unfamiliar with all these other games which are being discussed, since RDOA was my second ground combat game after CMBO.

In the interest of full disclosure: I have been a beta tester with Panther Games since RDOA in 2001. However, I am not looking to debate or score points or advocate this series. Mainly, I would just care to know if you have tried these games and if so what is your impression of how accurately they model the major issues of operational combat. So, any opinion you offer positive or negative will satisfy my query.

Thanks for your time.

[Walkthrough at Tweaktown Gamer]

Moon,

I know that Battlefront has been working on realism enhancements to the original Russian developed game. I am curious to what extent individual soldiers will be limited by their weapons training such that they cannot just simply man a field piece or crew a tank simply because it's there?

Years ago I played a little bit of Operation Flash Point. Although fun to play, I was always amazed at how I could jump into a tank or helicopter and simply operate it. I hope TOW is not going to be so lose with skills and training such that the battlefield becomes a big grab bag of goodies. Whereas it may be true that every gunner and tanker knows how to handle a rifle, the converse probably wouldn't be.

Thanks.

[Infantry cost/benefit of engagement range when ammo is limited?]

I am not sure I like where this thread is going ... some of my best friends are AI.

[Infantry cost/benefit of engagement range when ammo is limited?]

I like playing against the AI in custom scenarios. Generally, I play the attacker (due to AI limitations) unless the briefing suggests playing as the defender.

[Infantry cost/benefit of engagement range when ammo is limited?]

Interesting point there ... do routed or paniced units spot?

[Infantry cost/benefit of engagement range when ammo is limited?]

When I posed the question and posted I was defending against the AI. I think the AI will easily fall for a solid contact hiding and be ambushed again. I cannot imagine a human be burned more than once or even at all, since such a situation would have called for supporting units to have the buildings under observation from the tree line and then checked out by maybe a half-squad.

One situation I think where it may be better to expend small arms ammo to less affect (immediate casualties) at greater range (again against the AI) is when the enemy is combined infantry and tanks. If you can strip away or halt the infantry, the AI may well keep the tanks comming leaving them pretty much blind to whatever traps await them.

[Infantry cost/benefit of engagement range when ammo is limited?]

Sorry, I could not resist commenting on the fact hide may still be of use when units are in good cover despite having assigned arcs.

[Infantry cost/benefit of engagement range when ammo is limited?]

I just played a CMBB game where tank hunter teams despite being given cover vehicle arcs kept letting lose with their panzerfaust beyond the arc. I think perhaps they would have followed my intentions better if I had hid them.

[Infantry cost/benefit of engagement range when ammo is limited?]

Given: CMBB/CMAK

Assumption: Let's not consider the impact of allowing the enemy to close under EFOW and therefore develop solid contact reports which at a further distance would only be at best sound contacts ... Furthermore, let's not put too much thought into the exact weapons in use as to whether we are talking sub-machine guns or rifles ... I would like to keep this general.

Situation: An infantry oriented defensive battle with squads that do not have enough ammo to sustain an unrestricted fire fight for the full length of the scenario.

Question: Which is better?

Option #1: Set up your squads in heavy buildings (ground in most of the arc area would be classed as open) with covered arcs of say 30-50M with a posture of hide. When they have successfully engaged the enemy in the arc, then order them to cease fire and go back to hiding.

or

Option #2: Skip the covered arcs or maybe only use covered arcs to identify areas to cover, but allow fire out much greater distances of say 100M where the enemy will most likely be spotted and engaged in the cover of tall pines.

My Thoughts: I have gone with Option #1 so that the enemy can be engaged with the least possible cover and at close range such that the most casualties and psychological impact can be achieved. However, since close combat results in higher rates of fire, this will burn ammo very fast. Option #2 would burn ammo quite a bit slower, but it is my guess that less will be achieved for each round fired.

---

Although I have been playing since the CMBO days, I still consider myself only an experienced beginner. I would be curious to hear how the true experts view the cost benefit analysis of the above. (In particular, the very analytical types like JasonC.)

Thanks in advance for taking time to reflect and respond.

[Michael Dorosh Marathon]

Where is this available for download?

Thanks.

[ March 05, 2006, 03:29 PM: Message edited by: markshot ]

[Unit Levitation?]

CMAK 1.03

I just loaded up a scenario, "Buffalo Soldiers".

There are quite a few units hanging in mid-air. They are not passengers, and they are not on the second floor. Note, the location says pavement.

Anyone ever see this before?

[Holding an objective with only AFVs?]

Too bad ... I no longer have the save game, but it was probably the result of the near cowering units. I had also thought that the game weighs the point values of the units around the flag so that you don't have truly clear the area. However, I think one of those cowering units was a high value ATG.

[Holding an objective with only AFVs?]

There were. A couple had surrendered and a couple were cowering.

[Holding an objective with only AFVs?]

I was playing a scenario yesterday, "Battery Overrun". My forces were all AFVs. I had crushed the enemy completely by the end, but not to the point that they would auto-surrender.

The weird thing was that try as I might, the game would not credit me with holding the single VL despite having a few tanks parked on it. (I replayed the last turn a few times each time parking more tanks on it.) Instead, it kept showing it as contested.

You can take and hold objectives with AFVs only correct?

Thanks.

[Walkthroughs/AAR's WITH movies.]

Here is something I did a few years ago:

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=7;t=001377

[New Scenario - Tank Battle Problem No3 Tanks in combat against bunkers]

George,

I am getting ready to start playing.

The distant trenches are part of the Germans OOB as opposed to the Soviet. I am not sure if this is an oversight or you did that so that they would be known to the German player.

[Will the player have any control over the size of the battles?]

I tend to prefer tiny to medium battles as opposed to large or huge battles.

In configuring CMC will it possible to control the scope of battles which the player will see?

If so, how would such an ability interface with the size of the maps such that they appropriate for the associated size of the forces?

Thanks.

[Will the CMC battles be any better than quick battles?]

Moon,

To be sure I understand you. The setup placement of individual AI units in the CMBB for an attack or defense will be determined by the CMC AI component and not CMBB's COMPUTER FREE TO PLACE units?

Thanks.

[Will the CMC battles be any better than quick battles?]

I've played CMBO/CMBB/CMAK. I only play single player and for the most part have stuck to user designed scenarios. I got the impression that the quality of game play (single player) for well crafted user designed scenarios was way ahead of quick battles.

My question: Will CMC simply use COMPUTER PLACEMENT FREE to set up units that is built into the CMBB engine or will it go beyond that and generate better quality battles than are normally found when one plays quick battles with free computer placement?

I appreciate the operational aspect of the game, but I would like know that the actual individual CMBB battles themselves will be worthy investments of playing time.

Thanks.

[Advantages of the "sneak" command....]

One problem I have with sneak is that you cannot go from hidden to sneak. As soon as you issue any movement command, troops will stop hiding and wait for the command delay. During this time, they will happily take pot shots at the enemy and reveal their position. I suppose you could give them a minimal covered arc, but I am concerned of about placing such restrictions upon troops on the move.

[Advantages of the "sneak" command....]

I have sometimes used sneak (and possible hide) to position troops in the open behind a wall. I am under the impression that when a unit is behind a wall on more or less level ground that sneaking or hidden troops cannot be seen.

[Is it time to discuss distribution and anti-piracy yet?]

I have been in many Starforce debates and don't want to waste time on another.

However, I would simply like to state that I have purchased 4 BTS games in the past and will most likely buy more in the future. However, I will not buy any product of any genre of any stellar quality of any publisher if it includes Starforce. I would rather play CMBO until 2020, then to deploy Starforce on to one of my systems as both a matter of practice and of principles.

[A big "thank you" to Adm. Keth]

Keith,

I want to also say thank you for all that your site had done to increase my CM enjoyment.

I have to admit to being one of those who used your site for years, but never posted reviews (because a combination of laziness and belief that my opinions were less educated than many other CM players). I personally regret the loss of such a wonderful repository, your loss of hours/passion invested, and possibly the loss of some scenario/operations/maps/reviews gone forever.

Although it may be gone, it was a true gem while it lasted. Thanks so much!

[CMBO Fire & Maneuver Scenario now available for CMAK]

I just finished playing (and emailed my results to Bil). Too embarassing to post them for the general public.

So, are you saying that gun spotting got easier in CMBB/CMAK versus CMBO. I thought EFOW made spotting harder than CMBO?

For the left and right ATGs at the start, I only had sound contacts to them, but I dispensed them with off map arty. The center ATG I ID'ed and took it out with an on map mortar.

But the P51D and the M10s really messed me up.