Lacky

This is a problem with a lot of the allied armor and AT's. Many of the British Cromwell's will not fire their hollow charges if they have too much HE. Vehicles with an abundance of AP rounds will not fire their tungsten. The A/I seems reluctant to use any special ammunition if lots of "other" ammunition is available. The crew experience does not matter. I've had Veteran 6lb and 76mm ATG's sections refuse to fire their tungsten at German heavy armor. I'd understand if the crews were regular or worse they might mis-id enemy armor and load the wrong round. This shouldn't be a problem with Veterans or better. In one scenario a CRACK cromwell continuously fired HE at a Mark IV instead of using one of its 4 hollow rounds. *most annoying*

It's not only AP. Vehicles with large amounts of HE rounds will not fire hollow charges at enemy armor. I had five cromwell's duel mark IV's over the course of a game. Early in the game, the cromwell's would hit the Mark IV's with HE rounds. After several minutes of infantry blasting my cromwell's started to use their hollow rounds against the mark IV's.

Whoa there! You took my simple idea and expounded on it far beyond the scope I envisioned. The idea of using Artillery blast permits localized morale reduction, not everything within LOS (that's what global morale does). When a unit hits certain 'states' (i.e. panic, broken, routed) then the game would trigger off a size dependent artillery round, which does nothing other than affect morale. All terrain mod's would be included in the calculations; this would permits units in good terrain to withstand a slaughter occurring nearby. The game doesn't crawl to a halt when a player calls in a bunch of artillery. Whereas a player in a 50 vs 50 tank definitely notices a CPU hit. Thus going on this simple observation, a few more morale only artillery routines should not bog the game. The game currently does a lot more with normal artillery (kills, building damage, craters, etc...) the principle of a morale only check should not phase processor speed. My idea is to dissuade players bunching up an entire company across a 20 meter front and not suffering a morale penalty when friendlies get chewed up in front of their eyes.. As for an elite unit suffering bad morale effects if charging along side a green unit, the bases and spacing are abstract. The units are not orderly marching in a maneuver column, especially while they are charging an enemy position. Even elite units wouldn't know if that scream 10 meters to their left was a person in their unit or a member of the green squad. Even so, with a wave of the magic wand, the code could make Fanatical and Elite units immune to localized morale effects.

Shouldn't require a few more CPU's! When an unit starts to panic or becomes broken/routed, generate an invisible artillery blast centered on the unit. The sphere of influence when contacts same-side forces could chip away at their morale, but do no physical harm. The size of the "blast" could be based on the experience level of the unit. When an elite squad "Breaks and runs," it ought have a dramatic effect on nearby friendly forces. Think of it as cascading morale failure. When units are packed in so tightly together and one unit starts to get completely ripped apart, nearby friendly units should have their morale reduced for a period of time.

I believe so. If the Finnish would allowed Hilter to use airbases and deploy an Infantry Corp into Finland, the chances are quite good the Soviets would have been defeated at Leningrad from a combined attack from the north and south. Politics and the lack of manpower. Stalin didn't have any european allies to start with. The Soviet Union's foreign treaty policy was very thin. We already known Stalin was planning on attacking western Europe. Hilter's attack on the Soviet Union threw a wrench into Stalin's plans and the end result was a unified Europe. Helsinki and London Rumania, Hungary, Spain, Austria, Finland, Czechoslovakia [This message has been edited by Lacky (edited 02-12-2001).]

This is a problem with infantry. The default position for infantry is the kneeling, standing position. As soon as you issue an order, they go to that posture and wait out the delay time before executing the order. The sequence of evens unfold like this: --Infantry is hiding somewhere. --You order them to move, crawl, etc... to another position. --The turn starts, they pop up and wait for the time delay before executing their orders. In the process, they'll open fire.

Brought up before in the past and it bears another re-freshing. Combat Mission is seriously lacking, when men are defending a pre-set location. It's far too easy to assault locations with smoke against MG's which are dug in or fixed locations. Defending MG's don't need LOS to suppress a charging ground attack. CM handles this improperly. The game's TAC A/I doesn't fire until it sees a target. Smoke makes MG's far less effective and sets a poor historical representation of their use. This isn't a rant =) Think of it as a personal crusade for historical accuracy!

Recently engaged a fellow in Tin Tanks, from Rune Pack #4. I would suggest give this one a shot There are a lot of great PBEM scenarios, but this one is fresh in my mind! http://www.combatmissions.co.uk/

The defender can win if the conditions favor him. 1) Time: Does the attacker have enough time to scout out ambushes? If not then defender is favored. 2) Terrain: Does the defender enjoy fall back positions in deep woods or reverse slope? If not, then attacker is favored 3) Ammo: Attacker is favored. Given the attacker has +50% more points, they'll have 50% more ammo. This problem is amplified by an attacker who uses teams. Often I find my men running out of ammo due to enemy scouting. Low ammo as the defender is my biggest fear.

You might have. Last night my 76mm ATG (US, late war) refused to fire its two round of tungsten at a jadgpanther. It kept firing AP round one after the other.

Nahverteidigungswaffe's are lethal. Had one take out a loaded halftrack. According to both web sites, the nahverteidigungswaffe wasn't very effective. Its prime role was to discharge smoke, not blow up enemy halftracks. Wonder how BTS figured in the point value of nahverteidigungswaffes?

When the TC is taken out, who mans the nahverteidigungswaffe?

Loaded ten of each firefly via the editor. This is more information for this thread. Allied Sherman VC Firefly: 5/0/4/0/6/0/3/0/6/0 Allied Sherman IIC Firefly: 0/4/2/4/5/1/6/1/3/0 It's a wide distribution; anywhere from zero to six, based on luck. Loaded 20 Elite Fireflies and their ammo range is very similar, so this rules out crew quality. Forgot to add: Month was set to July [This message has been edited by Lacky (edited 02-01-2001).]

Pillboxes are a liability rather than an assets. AT pillboxes generally cost twice as much as their counterpart AT sections. 75mm AT Pillbox: 130 75mm AT PaK 40: 67 88 AT Pillbox: 204 88 AT PaK 43/41: 114; PaK 43 118 Pillboxes are classified as vehicles and thus cannot readily hide from scouting. AT guns benefit from nearby HQ's, thus the HQ augments the AT gun's ability to hide in ambush in addition to morale boost. For the cost of a "regular" 75mm AT Pillbox, one can field an Elite 75mm AT section. Couple the elite status with a nearby HQ and the AT section is rarely suppressed nor missing important shots. The Pillbox is generally KO'ed before using a small portion of its ammo is used. One can easily smoke a pillbox. The Allies have plenty of smoke. High caliber artillery can knock out pillboxes with ease. In a recent auto purchase TCP game one of my pillboxes was taken out by 105mm VT rounds. It never got to fire a shot, because the hide command is useless. The Pillbox was situated in a deep valley with a very limited field of fire. Madmatt's idea of using pillboxes with interlocking fields of fire with AT support doesn't work when playing anything other than 2k+ battles due to the outrageous costs of pillboxes. And even then, the Axis is sinking a lot of points into Fortifications, which is probably better spent on support and/or artillery. Smart playing can easily defeat an interlocking pillbox defense. A 75mm AT Pillbox costs as much as thirteen TRP's. I'd place my bets on 13 TRP's ability to inflict significant damage on the attacker rather than 1 helpless, misbegotten Pillbox who's cowering in a limited field of fire.

Major Tom, please back this statement with facts. I've taken immense pleasure in reading the history of this war in all accounts from many perspectives. I am asking for a single source, just a sole piece of literature, which supports your claim. The United States of America declared war on Britain. The British in Canada had ample warning of the impending American attack. Hardly what one would consider terrorist. Yet, the British fully supported their own policy of high sea pirating and Indian attacks on US settlements. I can find some rather interesting quotes of the British ordering the surrender of defeated US forces or else face the scalping knife of the Indians. [This message has been edited by Lacky (edited 01-26-2001).]

My sentiments exactly. The best way to use Mark IV's is in packs, just like how one uses an M4.

Madmatt, you do realize locking this thread will lead to most posts of the same subject?

CavScout, glad to hear the your outfit is equipped with the older Abram's. The M60A3 is still lingering around in few national guard armories. A few years back someone broke into an armory in California and took an M-60A3 on a death ride Slapdragon, good points! I'm a little mystified why the barrels off the older tanks cannot be re-used or cannibalized. It is the same barrel, correct? The re-boring/milling of barrels is done extensively in the Navy. Nevertheless, it's good to see the US army adopting the commonality doctrine. The WW2 Soviet's showed how important it was to keep a "common" weapon in their arsenal; this being the 7.62cm round. The US contractors, Army supply chain, and ammo requirements are all "in the loop" when speaking about the 105mm. Too much diversity generally leads to supply problems. (i.e. Germany WW2). The Rifled 105mm was outdated by the development of the Soviet T-80, which didn't see mass production nor exportation to foreign governments. I confess not knowing the details of the T-80 and whether it lives up to expectations of lethalness, armor protection, and maneuverability. BTW, this is my last post about the LAV. Unfortunately it's quasi-off topic for this thread. [This message has been edited by Lacky (edited 01-24-2001).]

Jhtrickey, I'm a little stumped on whether you're agreeing with me, not agreeing, or somewhere in-between! Most military armies don't throw out expensive weapons, rather they store them. I'm guessing the US Army reserve and National Guard units still fields M-60A3's. If the LAV is to be equipped with a rifled 105, then the US army will already have the barrels and ammo for the load out. This will make the overall cost of the LAV lower than fielding a newer barrel or using the Abram's 120mm. The rifle 105mm has an excellent long range shot capability. Equipping the LAV with a shorter range 120mm will bring it into kill distance of most anything it's going to fight. The US fielded the M113's with (six!) 105mm recoilless rifle barrels, because they had an abundant supply of 105mm recoilless rifles in storage. I'm making a leap of faith into believe (for myself) the US Army is using a similar philosophy with their new LAV design.

It'll lead to a lot of upset Players! There're a few old, old threads about this topic. I can't remember the reasoning behind the exclusion of battlefield wear and tear. CM2 KV-1's would be littering the map. lol.

Did Popular Mechanics explain why they're using a 105mm? I imagine the US army has several warehouses brimming with ex-M60A1/A3 and early M1A1 barrels plus the shells to go with them. It's not a bad weapon, very accurate at long range. Sort of reminds me of the M113 armed with 6 recoiless 105's during Vietnam. Maybe I should just buy the Magazine

I agree and disagree! A problem would arise when players in-game check the armor quality figure. I wouldn't mind variable armor qualities if the number remain hidden, so player's wouldn't know for certain if they had a good panther or a lemon.

The change is fine. Since I don't have a favorite side, I'm getting stuck playing the Germans by most of my opponents selecting Allied. Doesn't bother me at all, though. I'll play either side. Haven't lost a German-side 1k ME TCP/IP game yet! Feel the wrath of Veteran 37mm AA guns. Those things are so damn effective!! Course, they're pretty vulnerable. Steve, I'm a little curious. Is BTS reducing the Jumob point value due to the reduction on Front turret armor effective thickness?

WolfLord: I just setup 6 Panther G's Versus 5 M-10's and 5 Hellcat's All with regular crews, so the points are equal. @ 1300+ meters, up to 1400 meters. Results: 2 Panther G's survive. Second test: 2 Panther G's survive. Most of the hits were ricochets with a few shell break ups. Time frame is set to December 1944. Here are the screen shots: Let me be the first to say these tests are hog-wash since this sort of situation is beyond rare. I did these two tests to see if US TD's are truly that good at long range. Seeing that the odds are 10:6, I figured the US TD's would overcome the Panthers. I was grossly wrong. BTW, I'm using version 1.1. [This message has been edited by Lacky (edited 01-21-2001).]

All open-topped vehicles, especially if they're unbuttoned, are prone to KO by HE. The marder, with no upper rear hull armor, suffers moreso. Hummel's, Wespe's, Sexton's, and Priest's are quite nasty against anything other than a medium/heavy tank. Come to think of it the Hummel is truly an evil machine