dieseltaylor

Diesels are inherently more reliable as they have much less electrical items to go wrong. I take the point about the rest of the German armour but I assume they had some diesel trucks ... God knows why I assume ... Anyway the diesel engine was a good German design!!!!!

"Hi all, here's my favorites: Axis: Panther Allied: T34 family I believe these two tanks were the most innovative of WWII and both included the features that a modern MBT has: mobility, protection and firepower. Regards, Cassidy " I thought the Panther was a reaction to the T34! Apart from the Germans made it complicated and ran it on petrol. Know if the had kept the chassis and used a Panther turret and gun ...... mmmmmm!. Ok it may need a little reworking but they did fanny about with the engine and reliability.

You have not said whether the sniper had a hide order, you had specified a zone to look at, there was enemy infantry nearby, or if the sniper was elite or green. These things might all bear on the answer. Also the size of the ATG. I always think the 37mm is easier to hide than the 88mm ATG : )

First of all - The different nationalities have strengths and weaknesses. Russians have some good tanks later but throughout the war there strength is cheap infantry and MG's, mortars. Smoke from mortars can get you across open terrain. SMG infantry are lethal in the right terrain Russian tanks are fast and do not bog easily - what tactics can benefit from this? .... The British have excellent guns ............ I pooted 4 out of 5 Panthers with veteran or better crews with a single 17pdr ATG. That is a gun and half. With the little Carriers you can tow the 6pdr [57mm] which with its special ammo an nail a Tiger head on at a 1000 metres [as one of my opponents has just found out two minutes into a game. British infantry is not strong but does have the PIAT which is useful killing tanks as an intrinsic unit. Americans loads of fire power quick turrets on the tanks high rates of fire .... I am just scratching the surface . Learning whats good and bad with each nationality is important. How many points you have to play with is also very important in how you play the attack. If I have 3000 pts as the Russian my force mix is going to be a lot different from a 1000 point mix. At a 1000 points a lost tank is 10% of your points blown away. If you have 10 of them in 3000 pointer the loss of one is not that critical. And terrain. That is crucial. Having your finest Panzers fighting in Finnish woodland is a speedy way to learn that you should try and get a force suitable for the area you are fighting in! Ther are many articles on tactics in the archives worth searching out.

Absolutley right.

I agree with you - your contention of too populated , too many roads is definitely true in some set-ups. Proper roads in Russia were very rare. Funnily enough the size of roads is also overstated but that I have always assumed was a function of the games 20 metre squares. The number of roads in W. Europe that could accomodate two tanks travelling side by side must have been very limited. But aside from that, I am sure that decent WWII era maps exist for all countries to allow decent scenario specific regional designs. I think a database of "typical" terrain would be a benefit to many designers.

my brother having read the thread decided for laughs to see how well a towed 57mm would do. Getting it swuiftly into position it took 7 in the flank, then reduced to HE it was taking some out from the rear. Obviously hidden in a woood the AI was never able to place it . The Valentine can penetrate the frontal armour but did not have the survivabilty for massed Sturms.

Perhaps best done in time slots 1939 1940 1941 1942 etc otherwise why not simply choose the final tank in the series Pershing, the Cromwell was good. Mind you I do like the OT/34 also : ) . The Crocodile was pretty nifty - if you do not equate speed with the word AND Given that this is an international forum what your grandpa said is probably better left unsaid in your sig line.

Given that this is an international forum what your grandpa said is probably better left unsaid in your sig line.

"If what you say is accurate, that is too bad. As a programmer my experience has been when a project is no longer supported through improvements, updates, patches, you’re basically saying to the customer, "Hey we stopped caring, and so should you. If you want something better, buy our new product." What I've found is that while this doesn't get rid of customers immediately, it puts them into a state of mind of constantly being on the lookout for a new vendor (and product). Count me lookn. " Seemed more like I will throw my rattle out of the pram thread. Leaving a tank out of the game , and not planning to do a another patch do not warrant your comment. Of course your comment may be aimed at Microsoft ..... It is a game not a mission critical piece of business software. It is designed to make an enjoyable and playable game.

"As a newer member to the board, I get the feeling some folks are a bit sensitive about inquiries or comments? Looking back through some of the older posts, I've seen some pretty rough comments, this is not meant to be one of those, just an opinion." I am sorry if I have misjudged you as a troll - its just my opinion. Having joined the forum barely a month ago I would have thought you were still on the initial phase of learning the capabilities of the hundreds of vehicles available and mastering the interlinking of your infantry, artillery, airpower and armour to good effect. : ) I feel better now. Thank you. PS When was Monopoly last patched? EDited to remove flame content!

If you follow Big Dorks thread [above]to MZO and then to the War College you can see how many people have played the same scenario against the computer. WC2 was very interesting in several different styles were played. If you want to get the most out of it download the relevant scenario a, play it and see how you did versus others. Some of the AARs are very detailed and some are not but great to learn from.

I agree with Panzer 76. I cannot play seriously CMBO anymore. In TCP/IP you have no time to try and remember what you can and cannot. Still you have 12 people signed up so g'donyuo. Three minutes for 2000 points is reasonably generous

Thanks for the info - sound excellent

Historically I cannot give you chapter and verse, but a lightly armoued open topped vehicle with an expensive gun mounted on it would surely be kept well out of harms way. That is you need to have something distracting and dangerous between you and the enemy. German tanks , ATG's , infantry etc because the Hornet/ Nashorn ,494 built, is a big easily knocked out target. In the terms of a thirty minute battle I would expect the enemy to call up some artillery or mortars if they are close enough to spot your position so leaving them in one place could be a mistake. Remember to provide some AA unless you are of the fraternity who ban them from games when the weather is good enough to fly. I have used them to good effect in ME's and seen an opponent lose one in the first two turns of an ME where it was set up to dominate the battlefield - shot up by a fighter.

I would fancy my chances with the Russians in August 1943 against 30 Stugs - especially if I knew that was the force : ) We do not know if this was a random battlefield, woods, steppe or whatever, or the weather but I normally try and field a balanced force for ME's given I know roughly what the terrain is. The agreeing of all the parameters always seems very artificial to me and I would rather take my chances on not tying down the opposing side to what forces they can have. But 90% of my games are 2000 + pointers so I expect diversity in forces. Anyone who arrives on a battlefield with just one weapon type is a lousy player anyway : )

Hornet's Nest Intrigued by the discussion I tried it twice - aborted the first on turn 7 when finding craters do not make much odds and losing a Nashorn. Game 2 won 74-26 losing my most obvious Nashorn, a gun, the bunker and 1 man killed ,5 wounded. Ten vehicles killed 73 cas and 22 killed. It seems toi me that the TD's are really upmarket snipers and the value comes from staying alive but keeping the enemy nervous by the occassional shoot and scoot by all the late arriving Nashes. The mortar smoke did absolutely nothing for me but may bear some thinking about.

" The conditions were similar, 3000 QB, August 1943. We were to put together realistic forces with a strong infantry component. I did so. I thought that my opponent would do so as well." I can understand your ire but surely warfare is not about doing the expected - having said that if it is your intention to know what each other sides composition is going to be I am surprised you did not agree a percentage figure to spent or rely on the limiter built into the troop selection screen. I suppose you had ruled out airplanes, and agreed the weather but surely you had some ATG's ?.

"It even helps when fighting 80mm STUG's in 43 because it's much easier for the T-34's to close the combat range." Buying Valentine IX's is an even better way to kill Stugs

Thats true realism for you : ) With the added benefit you had no pre-knowledge of the no show - shades of Arnhem

Mikey That is true grogdom. BTW has anybody chosen one for a QB?

Probert said "ATGs" I think that this is what I meant by keeping people honest - if you know people are anticipating a defence of barbed wire , trenches, MG's, ATG's the odds are they will go infantry, artillery heavy. The chances of the attacker buying ATG's when they have 1500 odd points to spend is relatively low. Depending on the terrain he may have a lot or few to no tanks and this affects your force choice but I refuse to discount the possibility and subsequent opportunity of the attacker being tooled up in a non-armour mode. Does anybody routinely buy ATGs when attacking with relatively small points. I do but then I play 3000 pointson large maps when there is a reasonable certainty of enemy armour.

For those who read the articles and know what to expect from a "best"defence when attacking. I like to keep people honest a few tanks debouching into the infantry advance , running around the attacks rear area killing spotters HMGs and mortars sure blights their day! Of course you understand I am posting this under someone elses name : ) You have nothing to fear from diesel.

Gamey is what I consider is taking advantage of game design weaknesses. If you mean that smoke is being used ahistorically then that is a different arguement. But then you would not expect me in early war to advance my light Russian armour in nice easy chunks to be killed - I have hindsight and a desire to do better. Ahistorical maybe but certainly a better game in that I use the same equipment but in a different manner and without exploiting any game flaws. With regard to your readings on the use of smoke I am tempted to agree with you as I vaguely remember that this point being discussed before and it being said that doctrinally they did not use it much. But whether this answer applied to tactical situations but not to assaults I cannot recall. In any event we as the "local" commanders should be allowed to play the situation as we see fit unless we have specific agreements with the other player. I am always dismayed when you see people saying no ubertanks, no planes, no snow, no night time etc which always seems to me to be against the whole idea of warfare which is to gain as much advantage in forces as you can, to win with minimal losses. PS I love using smoke as Russians : )

Oops! Stuart was the official British Army name for the Light Tank M3 and the unofficial name Honeys as Sergei said. The British concept of naming tanks rather than numbering being a big plus to simplifying the Allied War effort .... think how many types of M3 the Americans had! Such a popular tank they were still in the Brazilian Army in the 1980's. Valentines came in at 18 tons metric, Stuarts 13 tons, M3 medium 27 ton metric ---- the Valentine was slow : ) so perhaps not light in the terms of across gound. But lovely in flanking as it has in the MKIX version the great 6pdr gun which can damage any German tank in the flank if not frontally. [ July 27, 2004, 08:29 PM: Message edited by: dieseltaylor ]