Lacky

Using a 60 year old BB isn't wise. It'd make more sense for the US navy to design a triple turret, single 16"+ rifled-barrel/turret monitor, which would maneuver faster and operate more efficiently. Such a ship (monitor, battlecruiser) could be outfitted with a proper VL system instead of the ad hoc Missouri retrofit.

Sure, the UK won the war of 1812. However this allowed the continuation of UK ships to seize US flagged ships, indenture (aka Slavery) the sailors, pirate the ships, and rip off all the cargo. The US declared war on the UK, not Canada. Canada wasn't a sovereign nation (aka Colony). Congrats to the Canadians who fought diligently to uphold Pirating! The US had a small maritime and a very small standing army. Yet, they stood up for themselves and fought the injustice's being done upon their nation. Canada didn't get rid of UK until after World War 2. The Canadian's bought their freedom by sacrificing their men and woman in a war of Europe. Don't fail to forget that the crown rewarded valiant generals by granting them land. Canada was a Prize nation. And for those who have forgotten, the PM of Canada swears an oath to none other than the Queen of England. HAH!

Great work! Thanks! Happy Holidays

I'd like to share a little story. A Churchill Crocodile, supporting a concealed infantry advance, comes under fire across a very tight LOS (<15 degrees) from dead ahead. The incoming fire is from a quad 20mm FlaK gun. The ROF and extreme noise was the indicator. The TC wisely buttons up. First minute goes by, the 20mm Quad is whacking away at the behemoth's front armor. Second minute goes by, the 20mm Quad keeps whacking away at the front of the Crocodile. My field commander gets a bit nervous and decides to position infantry in woods to observe where the hell this 20mm AA gun is located. There are only two viable locations this FlaK gun can be hidden! Third minute goes by, the 20mm AA keeps whacking away at the Crocodile's front. The infantry have a clear LOS to the only two patches of woods the AA gun could be in! My Crocodile TC orders area fire into one patch of woods. Fourth Minute goes by, the AA keeps cracking at the Crocodile and exposed infantry (who are trying to close the 400 meter distance to the two patches of woods). The Crocodile blindly fires for an entire minute into one of the woody patches. Fifth minute, witching hour, the 20mm AA finally gets a gun hit on the Crocodile. I'm stoked hot. Five minutes of direct fire, from only two small patches of woods that have been observed for several minutes yielding nothing. My blood is boiling. I unbutton the Crocodile to see if the TC can locate the 20mm. My infantry continue to advance for two more turns, finally getting within 100 meters of both woods, all the while taking direct fire from this ghostly AA gun. The eighth turn (eighth minute) the AA gun is located. My TC has been sitting on top of the Crocodile for several minutes (since the AA gun AI knew the gun damaged crocodile was a non-threat). Veteran TC and Infantry finally locate the 20mm Quad AA gun sitting in a foxhole within the patch of woods my Crocodile's area fire was ordered. AA gun positions appear to be ultra-hard to locate, much harder than AT gun positions. I'm not sure why this is so! Is there a historical reason why High-RoF AA guns are ghosts? If this unit had been an MG-42, or an AT gun, or anything else other than an AA gun, it wouldn't have remained a "sound contact" for EIGHT turns! This isn't my first experience with ghost AA guns. In another battle a 20mm German FlaK gun remained concealed for several turns, even though firing at infantry + armor at less than 200 meters. Sure, bad luck! Sure, War is Hell! However, I think the concealment factor for AA guns (especially German 20mm's) is set way too high or everything else in the game is set way too low. (i.e. I spot MG-42's almost instantly, and they're only on a tripod.)

ROFL!!! That's awesome. Merry X-mas

Edge hugging does not guarantee an automatic victory. This sort of attack doesn't necessarily mean one is maneuverings solely on the edge. When I attack an enemy flank, I'm generally off the edge of the map by a fair margin. When terrain dictates my approach, I often find myself sitting adjacent to the edge of the map thinking to myself how wonder it is not being peppered by off map assets. First and foremost, terrain dictates the battle. But with the edge and a good dose of smoke, the attacker can split the map thus making an edge (far flank) attack advantageous. I agree there are a lot of pro's and con's associated with an edge attack. Rarely does one of my units turn tail and run off the map, though. Of the 100's of CM games I have played, I can't recall one instance of a unit running off the edge. The unit will run towards the nearest terrain and hide in it or run towards the safe side of the map. I truly cannot count the number of games in which I won by rolling a flank I've played a substantial number of games versus other players. Generally when terrain permits, attacking along or near one side of the map with support weapons in the middle of the map and smoke screening my advancing force, I roll the flank. All the while I'm thinking to myself how convenient it is not to be engaging with off map assets, even though a historical situation implies enemy forces near or in contact with my opponents flanks.

I often find myself or my opponent attacking along the sides of the map. 90%+ of the current scenarios tend to uphold edge map hugging as a viable offensive maneuver. The defender is at a disadvantage unless they can discern or react to a map edge advance. Advancing near or against map edges allow players a secure method of protection their flank while concentrating their force forward or towards the center of the map. Using smoke rounds from off board artillery can wall off map edges much more efficiently than advancing up the middle! There exists many arguments for and against map edge maneuver. I find myself swaying to historical precedent. Given an attacking force attempting to dislodge a defender, the defender is quasi-assumed to be utilizing a flank (off-map) defense force. Encirclement or defensive breeches (i.e. Villers Bocage, Bastogne, Arnhem etc...) are situations for which my idea won't work. Thus... My idea: As an option, allow Neutral map edges and a % of the boarding region to suffer several penalties. One such penalty could be a decrease in movement distance. Another penalty might cause a shortening of command radius. The principle belief is to dissuade ahistorical advances because the 'game' doesn't take into account off board assets assigned to defend flanks.

A new command similar to hunt, Scout! When issuing this command, the vehicle proceeds normally as per the hunt command. When and if it makes contact with _viable_ threat, it backs up (retreats!).

The flags look great!

Kingfish is right. 95% of the retiree's down here in Southern Florida are indeed folks from NY, NJ, Maine, and the rest of the Northeast corridor. So lay off of Florida. Assbackward's is an apt term for your shallow comment, Steve. No points for Battlefront. =)

It depends on who your opponent is and if they saw you move into the cover. Sometimes it's best to sit tight, if no other cover is close by. If your men break morale while running away, they'll often run back to the terrain you just ran from thus putting them in double artillery jeopardy. Sometimes it's wise to use the withdraw command (no delay) in order to vacate a local region. Other times it's best to break up your formation into teams and run to all four corners! Your men will break. Your men will scatter. But by breaking up your squads into teams, you tend to take less damage from shelling. One other note is the type of artillery raining down on you. If it's BIG guns, 155mm+, just hang tough because if the shelling is zeroed in on your location, your men are already dead.

Infantry squads opening up fire at 350 meters is a waste of ammo. It happens a lot. During a good size battle, I'm often trying to hide my units in order to shut down their ammo consumption. It's ultra-annoying to watch them burn ammo at targets 300+ meters away. When employing veterans or better, my teeth grind when they pivot from a close target to fire at some _remote_ target all the way across the battlefield. I wish my Commander could make a standing order to not fire at the enemy if the enemy is farther than X distance. This problem is exploitable by the attacking side of any conflict.

The introduction of infantry fleeing damaged building code creates a need for certain constructions to be indestructible. Undoubtedly in CM2 players will be facing objects like the Grain Silo of Stalingrad.

I like to scope the settings. If playing a ladder match or in a tournament, how does one know the settings were properly inputted? You don't! People make mistakes. When a particular agreement is achieved to fight in Heavy tree coverage, it's quite possible to forget this information and keep it at default: Moderate. There's no way the remote player can validate the settings if the host QB selected his forces or use the before agreed on, Automatic Unit Purchase. Being able to check the settings to ensure they were properly set is what I'm asking for. The information could/can be tagged to the QB scenario file after generation. *Yes, sounds simple in words but probably requires 100 man-hours to implement.* If the coding (or re-coding) process is too taxing, that's cool. I can live without the information. Some of us do enjoy playing for sport (competition) and this information would prevent accidental slip ups from proceeding past the first turn of the game.

Again let me offer BIG Kudos for the TCP/IP beta patch. The wait has well been worth it. Now, while playing someone else I would like to see the scenario setup screen as they inputed the information. (i.e. Combined arms, Weather: (Did they select random?), Force layout (Is it random or did they select American Airborne?), etc...) All the information that generates a quick battle, if indeed it is a quick battle, is what I would like to see in some sort of popup screen. Alt-B is good for scenarios with briefings, yet doesn't supply any information needed in a quick battle! If there is already a command, I apologize for this post beforehand. My search through the hotkeys proved uninsightful.

Flamethrowers... they are prime if up close. My experience with them is mixed. Often when using them on defense and an enemy infantry unit runs into the same house occupied by the flamethrower, the flamethrower torches its own building. I ambushed a tank the other night with a flamethrower. The Sherman II ignored the flames and continued on its merry way. *sigh* It would have been a grand ambush! I was sorely disappointed. Flamethrowering units appear to be classified as s high threat. When they light up from an ambush or move, they draw fire from all quarters of the map. The only successful way I can get a flamethrower up close in a knife fight is to use it past the mid point of a fight and bring the suicide squad in (which will indubitably torch the same building of the melee). Hahah

After playing Combat Mission for the last year and tackling many situations, I conclude the Allied side point values are overbalanced. Since the conception of this game a uniformed method of tallying point values was generated. The methodology was/is based on number of men and firepower. So in essence, it's advantagous to have _less_ men in a platoon. Given that most infantry battles are conducted at less than 100 meters, units with exceedingly high short range firepower are excelling. The methodology used to calculate the current infantry values is blind without consideration of terrain. Germans: Hetzer's, StuH42's, SMG platoons, + a lot of other units are so cheap in comparison to Allied units it's putting this fine game to shame. Allied open topped tank destroyers are exceedingly overpriced compared to their counterparts solely due to their turrets. When a single 81mm mortar or 20mm AA shell can wipe out a 100+ point TD something is amiss. A close HE round is sufficient to take out a TD. This means almost any 75mm HE round will knock out an Allied open topped TD. I understand this issue has been tossed around on the board for a very long time. My research shows several heated debates about the point value system used. Experience from playing other players has shown me that MOST players tend to take the same type of units. There are a lot of "gamey" players. To finalize my comments: 1) The values of open topped vehicles should be decreased 2) SMG platoons are point for point too cheap I can't count the number of times I've heard the Axis player say, "I don't like what the computer chooses" <-- Key words for a SMG's, StuH42's, Hetzers, Puppchen's, etc.. etc... The point values are in error due to terrain not being considered in the equations.

Perfect example of this feature. Lucky for the panther it's not an open topped vehicle.

There's a serious problem with damaged buildings occupied by infantry. I had two squads break and run from a * damage building. They got slaughtered. While playing live this evening I spotted a single * damaged building with two enemy platoons. My sherman, being low on HE rounds, auto-fire smoke. Guess what? The infantry inside the building broke and ran from a SMOKE round. I was stunned. Later against a different opponent I targeted a piat at single * building with an enemy platoon. It, too, broke and ran. I like the idea behind infantry breaking and running from damaged building. However, infantry just became a LOT more fragile. Anything and everything that can fire "shells" can force infantry into the open (for slaughtering).

I understand the possibility of a fighter bomber inflicting good loses. Yet the fighter bomber tends to make a pass the turn before (or two) before it strikes. The AI does not dive for cover and split itself into fragments, players do. One bomb taking out two tigers is quite impressive. Just as impressive as my one 155mm barrage taking out 2 panthers, 2 panzer iv's, several halftracks and countless infantry. (immobilization inclusive). My 155's had over 1/2 its rounds left. I do not want to see ahistorical results within the game. But the entire premise of the points are based on combat effectiveness. Fighter-bombers are not warrent their cost.

I did a key word search on Fighter-bomber and another search on Jabos to see if this has been addressed in a topic. The are a lot of posts concerning Fighter-Bombers, but I could not locate anything, which dealt with the point cost of Fighter-Bombers. The game's current costs for Fighter-Bombers are: Allied: 225 @ Regular Axis: 300 @ Regular I'm challenging these values based on in-game effectiveness. My experience with fighter-bombers is luke warm, but extensive. Fighter-Bombers are not worth the cost in any situation I have found myself in. As the Allied player, I'd much rather be given (or purchase) a battery of 155mm's, 105mm's, 25 pder's, etc... To exemplify my personal distrust of the prohibitive costs of fighter-bombers, I fashioned a few 'test' scenarios to compare results. The results I ascertain cement my personal dislike of the cost effectiveness of fighter-bombers. A list of Pro's and Con's: Fighter-bombers: Pro's: a) can hit targets out of LOS (random and unreliable) can strafe for a few turns Con's: a) can be shot down unpredictable c) can attack friendly targets d) severely limited by weather e) units in cover are masked from most attacks Artillery: Pro's: a) Smoke (This is a huge blessing) specific area targeting c) good in all weather d) TRP's e) artillery spotters are stealthy f) # rounds Con's: - The only one I can think of is night games without TFP's. But even this doesn't stop artillery from fighting into the darkness along expected attack routes. It is to my understanding that Battlefront.com allocates point values to units based on the units performance capabilities without too much weight with regards to historical availability. On this basis I find the fighter bombers are budgeted too high for their effectiveness.

Undoubtedly most of you have experienced infantry getting chewed up. During breaks in Operations the game does a fantastic job of distributing the remaining manpower of a platoon. During scenarios I often find myself employing squads of 2-3 men, sometimes a lone survivor 1 man squad. These sub-1/2 team squads are operating very efficiently although most of their contingent is either dead or wounded. I'm often amazed to see 1 man squads throwing grenades nearly as efficiently as full strength squads! Perhaps an addition can be slated for future release of the game. I would like to see Platoon leaders exert more control over their formations when not engaged or defending a location. Much how like teams re-combine, I would like to see this effect when two undermanned squads come into contact.

Nice work El Cid_Cagi. Thanks!!

Infantry, when being hit with a large barrage, tends to break and run to cover while out in the open. I've had infantry run into a strip of woods, which was getting pounded to death. The beta patch is out and there's been an alteration to infantry retreating. I'm going to check out the new changes.

Does infantry stand a better chance of surviving if they're out in the open rather than in a wooded environment? The tree top bursts are lethal. I've tried testing both conditions without much success. Infantry tend to flee towards the nearest cover and sometimes that cover is woods.