Lacky

I can't recall being given a truck. Since the attacking force or ME's are never assigned AT/AA guns, not sure why a truck would be necessary. Typically trucks were hauled out of combat areas since they're transport assests. Is there a particular reason you would like to be assigned a truck or two?

This afternoon I wandered into CM IRC chat at TGN and was happy to find willing opponents. I'd never fought these people before. I spent the day fighting three different opponents in live games. Two out of the three games I was given the Axis side. The other one was an auto-select British force, which has little bearing in this thread. All three games were 1,000 ME's. In both of the Axis setups, I purchased: 1- Jadgpanther (regular) 2- Full company of PanzerGrenadiers (regulars) 3- Two 81mm FO's (regulars) 4- A Sharpshooter (veteran) The rest of the points I used on a variety of support weapons. The first match I bought a pair of 50mm AT guns. The 2nd match I grabbed a 75mm Inf Gun and a 75mm Half-track. My points might not be exact since I didn't write everything down. My first German match was against a company of British Airborne, with supporting Artillery, Churchill VIII and a Wolverine. The 2nd Axis game I fought American's who had infantry, 76mm AT guns, and M4's. I'll admit the fight against the American force pitted him against a very bad map. Nevertheless, we fought. I won both my German matches. So I still don't understand why folks are stating the German side is at a disadvantage. I don't rate myself better than an average player, at best. So please someone enlightenment me further because I must be missing something drastic.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: This desire to have the battle generator be more historical by forcing the sides to pick different classes of units is a failure. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> After considering your post for the last day, I cannot agree with your point of view. BTS attempts to model everything historically. So if they chose to allocate point ratio's in QB's to reflect historical trends, then they're upholding the historical premise/principle of the game. If 75mm Shermans frontally knock out Jadgtigers at 3,000 meters on a consistent basis, players would be upset about historical inaccuracies. Allowing typical non-historical/non-reality to take hold make the game any better? I think not. BTS has done a wonderful job of implementing a historical, realistic simulation. Sure, there are some problems. The problems we are facing are game mechanics not historical inaccuracy of units. If BTS feels justified by mixing up the point totals in QB's, then they're probably doing it based on historical trends/realities. I'm more inclined to play a game based on reality, not fiction. There's nothing stopping players from creating their own scenarios and playing the game as they see fit, even if it's boarding on non-historical OOB's or unit organizations.

Henri I found your AAR very insightful. Retrospecting into your game, I feel the Germans came out on top of the situation. Your armor force won the battle of steel, while suffering minimal losses. Hetzer's generally have more HE rounds than M-10's. As a bonus, the Hetzer is also significantly cheaper. The Allied artillery did what it was designed to do, neutralize the Axis infantry. There appears to be a notable difference between regular's and veteran's. Veteran infantry generally never break and run from cover while in command radius. I've had entire veteran platoons stand to the last man.

I can offer my point of view. Whether my opinion will hold up to the scrutiny of Grogs, I'm not certain! According to some world war II literature, it's estimated 75% of German casualties occurred from Allied artillery. Whereas the Allies suffered 50% of their casualties from German artillery. These percentages are a broad stroke comparison. I, for one, am uncertain if these numbers reflect strategic casualties or a bias towards tactical artillery. We know CM models artillery extremely well and thus the perception of Allied artillery superiority needs to be maintained if historical results are desired. As for infantry, although many posters believe US infantry platoons are more durable, I find US infantry companies very inflexible. Purchasing units is in itself very ahistorical. Many of the comparative problems we read and experience stem from players buying their forces. German infantry companies are far more flexible than their Allied counterparts. Although German infantry platoons might not be as durable, they can be used in specific roles. A German SMG platoon can lay in ambush or attack from behind a wall of smoke. German rifle platoons can be situated to cover large open areas. If weather conditions are set prior to the purchase, the German player can expect to have a near-perfect infantry force to fight with. Whereas the US player will be wondering what to do with his 60mm mortars when visibility is extreme limited. I also consider German infantry to be lethal tank killers, thus limiting how close the Allied player can approach with armor before it gets nailed with a faust. To sum it all up: Purchasing units will cause historical headaches, unless both players attempt to maintain a historical approach. I've seen everything from green spotters using TRP's, to an absurd number of Hetzers and Pumas.Game "balance" is never perfect. Players will always find a method to min/max point total effectiveness. BTS has given a nice tool to re-enact WW2 tactical simulations. BTS also tweaks the point totals in an attempt to keep the game historically challenging for both sides.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Forever Babra: Americans may cloak the war under the banner of free trade and sailors' rights, but it was a cheap land-grab aimed at an opponent they thought was preoccupied and could not defend herself. It failed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, I partially agree this was one of the reasons why the United State's went to war. In one of Madisons' letters he wrote something to the effect of annexing Canada. I don't think it was an Imperialistic maneuver, though. It goes without question to state; Britain was using her vast naval influence to intimidate the United States. After the United States war of Independence, many US merchantmen, businessmen, and traders started to conduct trade with other European nations other than Britain; this was cutting into the British Empire's revenue. Before the US War of Independence, the America's were not permitted to conduct free-trade with any nation other than Britain herself. I'm willing to dispute your statement concerning the operation offenses conducted by Britain near the end of this war. The United States military repulsed the British at Baltimore, New Orleans and the destroyed the British navy on Lake Champlain. No single event lead to the War of 1812. The British Navy was, unquestionably, the strongest military force in the western hemisphere. I feel, from my readings and observations, Britain casually used her military might to better serve the crown. The US war on Canada (which for all intents and purposes was British soil) was aimed at decentralizing the British Navy's control of the Northern Atlantic.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Forever Babra: And at the Hartford Convention New England tabled a bid for secession from the Union to seek peace with Britain on her own terms. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The United States Federalists lost considerable power due to their actions. It was Britain's peace negotiators who were instructed to attain peace with minimal losses. The Napoleonic Wars, the capturing of British ships, and the utter destruction of the British Navy on the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain was having its toll. The British Empire was broke. They could ill afford a prolonged war in North America. Britian needed commerce with Canada, the United States, and the rest of the Common Wealth in order to pay their war debts. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> What land did the US come away with? The status quo ante bellum articulated in the Treaty of Ghent does not allow for the transfer of sovereignty of any lands. American gains from the war, such as they were, were the destruction of the Native Confederacy in the Northwest Territory, forever ending native hopes for an Indian nation, and a relaxation of maritime harrassment. If that was worth a ruined economy, more power to ya... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The United States came away with the lands of the Indian nations and a very generous portion of the Great Lakes. The National boundaries were to be re-defined over the next 25 years with the United States reaping more lands. It's my understanding the British paid the American Indian's for the scalps of US origins. This was an ingrain fear of the common "American". Yet, this British atrocity is rarely mentioned in most anglo-saxon literature. The US had a score to settle with their indigenous neighbors for their acts in this War. The British wrote off their Indian allies. No? The British did not insist on Indian nation representation in Belgium. Britain needed peace quickly.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Der Unbekannte Jäger: *COUGH* 1812 *COUGH* <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> How can you taunt the USA with that war? Canada was a colony. Canada wasn't a sovereign nation. Canadian's didn't have their own flag! The war of 1812 was between the United States and Great Britain. Canada's constitution wasn't patriated until 1982! Canada's constitution was written in 1867 and it took 115 years before England allows Canada full autonomy. Some might say the United States lost the War of 1812, other's might declare it a stalemate. Yet, it was Britain who offered peace. And it was the United States who came away from that war with more land than they started with! My non-Anglo-Saxon education allows me to see, understand, and evaluate this war from an outside sphere. Do present day Canadian's realize why Britain asked for Peace?

Mensh's wit is superb! I believe curih is accurate with his observation of concealment. It's unforunate the LOS code didn't permit my mortar carriage to fire at the building. Perhaps Charles can think of a clever way to tweek the code in CM2.

I've run across an LOS bug during heavy fog scenarios. A picture is worth a thousand words, so here are the pictures. First two pics display being able to draw LOS to either side of the two story building: ----- Now attempting to draw LOS to the building fails. I tried it from all angles and attempted to draw LOS to the 2nd story, too! ----- ----- I still cannot target the building after deleting the wall with the editor. ----- [This message has been edited by Lacky (edited 01-15-2001).]

Illo, I know exactly what you're talking about and I'm guessing on the explanation. Vehicles are granted a bonus % to hit their target after they fire their first shot and given additional bonuses to hit after each consecutive shot. The Nashorn's are accurate, but their ROF is slow. The M-8's ROF is extremely high and they can zero in on the Nashorn's quickly. Your Nashorn's are at a disadvantage when targeting fast, small units such as the M-8. That's another factor working against your situation. Yet this brings up another interesting situation: Elite Nashorn crews should realize this!

Most open topped vehicles are able to knock themselves out. I've had a wespe, an american TD, and a german 75mm recon all self-KO. I think in every situation, the vehicle was unbuttoned. Perhaps the round took out the TC and the crew bails?

The current victory flag (points) method might be bettered to prevent, "Last turn rush." Some of my battles end on a sour note with my opponent charging a victory flag near the end of the game. They generally don't want to control the flag, just put enough units near/around the flag to make it disputed. Is this gamey? Nevertheless, the last few turns of a game sometimes determine the outcome of an entire 30+ minute battle. Here's an idea I propose for CM2! Cumulative VP's: Very similar to the current all or nothing method, except the victory points are awarded to the controlling player on a per turn basis. Single side VP's: One side is granted VP's for controlling a specific flag, not both sides. I would like to see conclusive closure. Far too many games "end" when things start getting good! Being able to play after the game ends is NOT what I want. This will inevitably draw out games and make scenario's near-impossible to balance.

What is all this talk about blowing up other ships that venture too close?! All warships have a variety of weapons, of which, some of them are non-lethal. SOP for surface ships while entering port dictates pressurization of the fire mains with the hoses manned. This practice serves a dual purpose (Quick accident/fire readiness and Repel Boarders) Training fire hoses and discharging sea water at closing small craft has been done for decades! The terrorist ship was no larger than a dingy. This doesn't work very well against Green Peace, though. Green Peace uses BIG ships

Modern torpedo's are not specifically designed to penetrate armor. The primary role of modern naval torpedo's (USN) is to create a large air bubble (void space) under/around the target's hull. This is done to "break the back" of the target, ensuring complete destruction. Whether a BB could survive water evacuation is a questionable matter.

I second mace's opinion. More information is good. Less information leads to a departure from reality. I enjoy accurate simulations, not the one's based on false information carried forward after the fact. Far too many wargames/simulations have diluted reality.

Rushing to the Flag('s) is generally a sure fire way of getting whipped. It's far better to rush to a superior terrain feature. If the flag is occupying one of those terrain feature's, so much the better. There's a lot of pre-turn 1 placement and map over-view surveying involved. If one side (determine's/is capable) of reaching key, defensible location's prior to their opponent because of the predictable setup placement of ME's, then that's generally the game. One quick exception: If the map is utterly huge, then this sort of pre-game gameyness is minimal.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software I guess I am going to disagree with this I think the "problem" is more perceived than actual, and the suggested fix would cause QBs to be rather frustrating for both sides. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The current system is fine, yet there does exist a very predictable setup. Your example of a meeting engagement being balanced (based on forces) is quite expected when facing off against an opponent. So instead, I check the map + weather for balance. Eyeballing the map and predicting the limits of my opponent's setup area, it's not too hard gauge if my forces can attain a certain position (in relatively safety) before my opponent does. Here's but one example: In a recent QB via TCP, a hill with Pine tree's dominated the middle flank of the map. A perfect position to take command of the rest of the map. Although this might be construed as "gamey," I used the high altitude map view and gauged from my own setup area, the limit's of my opponents'! And yes, I got a platoon up there before he did. The entire battle boiled down to, "Whoever could get to this hill is going to win." The point values assigned to units is a mesh of their offensive and defensive capabilities. Most often than not, units are severely under-valued while on the defense. My example TCP game was a wrap. Given an equal point value and my forces on the defense without foxholes (which is great because this allows me to maneuver instead of hiding in a hole), my opponent had to overcome my huge advantage. In most random ME's, there generally no more than two key features (a village, town, hill etc...) that shift the entire outcome of the battle. Buildings are less of an advantage now due to the new infantry self preservation AI. Pardon the length of this post. I started to write and kept on going like the Energizer Bunny.

Hetzer's on defense are a nightmare. If they have a hill to hide behind, they're worse. Hunt to the crest, pull back. Repeat ad nausaem. Since their ROF is low, it's not that big of a deal if they get only a single shot off while hull down on the crest. Where're the Stug's?! I rarely see Stug's by comparison. *think back* The _only_ time I have seen my opponent's with a Stug is when the scenario/QB assigns them. Getting lined up on their Flank is a sure method of beating them. The trouble is your opponent knows this. Sealing off the Hetzers' flanks with infantry/at weapons or the edge of the map reduces the opportunity. M5's and all Recon turn tail and run from Hetzer's if the Hetzer is lining up on them. So... since the M5 costs more and if the Hetzer is properly positioned, the M5 won't be getting a flank shot.

Would be interesting to have QB start zones non-rectangular. Perhaps a square or a hemisphere. Hrm... perhaps a circle if the map is large enough! As it is now the other side starting locations are rather predictable. It's not hard hopping into 7 view and eye-balling where my opponent is permitted to setup.

Some more gamey tactics: 1) Using Zook's, Piat's, Sharpshooter's and Shrek's to scout. 2) The defender buys Green/Conscript Flame-thrower's to torch a small map. I don't think this is gamey if the defender buys the entire Engineer platoon. 3) Buying hordes of Green FO's and TRP's. *This one is nasty, since the FO's don't need LOS!* TRP's are not counted against artillery totals. 4) Using 60mm's and 2 inch mortar's en mass (i.e. 10 60mm's attached to a Company Commander). It's very effective in game, but realistically the ordinance was attached to the platoon's. 5) I'm pretty sick of seeing Hetzer's. As a matter of fact, I'm _really_ sick of seeing them. Although their point values are indicative of their effectiveness, it takes skill to knock out a Hetzer. The last major TCP game I fought in pit me up against _four_ green Hetzer's. Hetzer's are far more effective on the defense and their point values don't reflect it!

Not only world war 1 Benny, but early war Eastern Front. The Russian's suffered mighty to the MG-34 in the early years.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by StellarRat: I do, however, find it interesting that some of our non-US/British posters have a better command of written English than some of these obviously American "flamers." That's really sad. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Flame bait!! Flame bait!! Open all gun ports and prepare to Fire!!! Seriously, why did you target American's? I often read Aussies, Brits, (and even Finn's), Kiwi's and whatnot's flaming away on this board.

Any game or simulation which boasts of loose or small units generally entails gamey tactics (by certain players). I often seen Zooks, Piats, and Shrek teams running point or doing a wide flank scouting maneuver. Not what I consider historical, unless the AT team is actively hunting a target.

If you're allowing the computer to pick forces, you better host. There are some players who pick their own forces and allow the computer to select the opponents. This was recently brought up on this board. There's a difference between Your opponent losing connection and Your opponent as quit the game.