dieseltaylor

Valentines- when you need a decent anti-tank gun they are the biz. Handy also that they are mobile and armoured. In 1943 you can really upset the German player who shrugs of the 76.2mm rounds.

Thanks Capt. Pies You have led me to the possible ultimate treasure trove [at least for British and Commonwealth] of militaria - http://www.regiments.org/milhist/regtintro/index.htm and amongts all its treasures is a link to http://www.napoleonseries.com/index.cfm absolutely brilliant resource - even for non-geeks like me. I mean I had forgtten that we occupied Heligoland for most of the 19th century. Doh!

A.E.B I agree with you remarks. YankeeDogs calculations though are based on treating the ammo load as all potentially expendable in the assault. I have not looked at the math but if I say the ammo shown is the "available for assault" and it is two-thirds or half of what is actually carried. This would tie in with YankeeDogs observations and show the rate of fire being more realistic in the circumstances outlined. I think it is an element of fudge factor to produce the right result. We cannot make our soldiers carry out assaults when they realise they would have no defensive firepower left if they did. If BTS showed soldiers with spare [defensive] ammo no doubt people would complain they could not get them to perform a heroic last attack. Fair enough say I. Does anybody have any infantry advice on reserving ammo?

Nice find . Thanks. Popski's Private Army? Seriously is there a directory of military web sites anywhere. It would be nice if there was one hosted by a major organisation [wink nudge nudge]. All the military sites would be beter visited etc If such a directory exists .... let me know

Nice analysis and SirReal's point adds extra support. A re-vamp does look in order. My only other feeling is that perhaps there is an element of fudge in the game to reflect that the infantry are never going to use up all their ammo because they will wish to keep some for counter attacks and " emergencies " . Could it be that the expended ammo is that proportion they are willing to use offensively? I am sure in all armies there must be guidance on how much to keep back of your load if re-supply is not going to occur with-in the time frame of the action. Any grogs with the info?

Cracking the Egg - you chose a real toughy. I have had a look at it from the allied side only and you have to think if I can get 50% plus without risking my SU@s that might be the secret. Historically the Allies would never go head to head if they could help it. So always try to think if the point vlues you are risking are going to pay off. I do not think anyone could win this at first attempt without huge luck. 1st attempt minor defeat 41/59, 3rd 51/49 to me!!!

Colonel You are forgetting the equally important hilliness factor. Lumpy ground plus trees can be a nightmare for ubertanks. Or even normal tanks with AT's being wheeled into woodland Even if one were able to find commanding positions for your tanks smoke or heavy artillery can really ruin your day. My brother and I play unrestricted - apart from period in the war - and it is not a problem [provided is not flat terrain and/or treeless]

and me

Sorry the question through me a bit It's not a question of units in the game it is a question of what posssible unit you can think of that is not included. You can test yourself and look up exotic Hungarian say or Finnish or Rumanian stuff and it will still be in there. However I have to admit that the Kreigsmarine and Russian naval units are missing. Ships you understand - I think Russian marines are in!!! So really 100''''''''''''''''''''s of units

A search under "pinned units" produces a few good articles. I have just glanced at one Infantry Problem: Running Out In The Open While Under Fire This also links to previous threads on infantry reactions to fire

Gungalley, There are 52 articles showing up by the search function that mention "Soviet artillery". I have just read some of them but one " ARTY SUCKS!!!!! " seems pretty exhaustive. And I have learnt a bit with only a quick glance at it.

You may not see it from the link but you will need the other patches - a mere 100+MB's. Friendly is it not. Regardless of whether you can pull down this much I recommend you write to them and ask for the patch CD. Perhaps then they will become a little more consumer friendly. If you think I am being hard on them think of the relative size of the Battlefront upgrades. IMPORTANT PATCH VERSION NOTE * This v1.02 patch must be applied to a copy of the game that has ALREADY been patched to v1.01. It will not work on the original v1.0. IMPORTANT PATCH VERSION NOTE * This v1.03 patch must be applied to a copy of the game that has ALREADY been patched to v1.02. It will not work on v1.0 or v1.01. Please review the "WHAT VERSION OF CMBB DO I HAVE" section below to see what game version you currently have installed.

I love Tar's idea - simple to implement and understandable in military turns. Unless we get more ammo delivered onto the battlefield we need something to stop the infantry arriving useless at the main attack point. And I do not want to be making units swivel, pause or any other convoluted order simply to slow down ammo use. "Actually, rather than limiting this to indirect fire weapons, it would be nice to have some general control over fire volume, for specific targets as well as area fire. In the spirit of avoidance of micro-management (such as specifying this down to the exact round), I would propose having general categories of fire effort, say. 1) Harrassing Fire......slow rate, few rounds 2) Suppressing...........current small arms fire rate 3) All out....................current arty rate, close-in small arms This would allow one to give some guidance as to the relative importance of effect versus ammo expenditure that one wants t"

What was noticeable - by its absence was the mention of mines in preventing the overun of the AT and infantry at Kursk. To give a flavour of the extent of the value - As the German forces approached the Soviet Second Defense Belt, they encountered the protective minefields laid in advance. In addition, the Soviet engineers of the Mobile Obstacle Detachments intensified their activities in laying mines on the German routes of advance. On July 6, engineer units of Central Front laid more than 9,000 mines, in addition to destroying some 16 bridges. During this day of fighting, 88 German tanks and self-propelled artillery pieces were stopped in these minefields -- 65 of them in minefields laid during the battle. Clearly mines continued to be an important factor in the battle. Gen. Model recognized that the Soviet minefields and strong defenses had prevented a quick tank-supported breakthrough. He considered that the original plan of reaching Kursk quickly with a tank-led spearhead was now impossible. To penetrate the Second Defense Belt would take four or five days of slow, grinding attacks and would require a heavy expenditure of men, materiel, and munitions. Once the German attack entered the Soviet front line company strong points, the tactical concept was to eliminate the Soviet positions one by one. Each strong point was an essential link in the chain of interlocking fire -- each company strong point depended on its neighbors to lay down a curtain of fire across its front. Thus as soon as they captured one strong point, the Germans planned to "roll up" the neighboring strong points from the flank. The Soviets, of course, were well aware of the German tactics and, as Section G indicated, attempted to forestall them by: ? Deep defensive belts rather than thin lines ? Providing defense in depth: eight defense belts ? Masses of artillery and antitank guns ? Reserves for counterattacks at every echelon ? Extensive use of mines There is about a hundred pages of analysis so a few brief excerpts is all you get. For the real deal go here http://www.geocities.com/armysappersforward/ and scroll down. You will see also an article on Hobart and his funnies - very interesting.

Having seen a SU85 taken out at 1400 metres by a Panther I do not think 2km square is too big for a battle - I prefer large maps so I can flank ... But in all things the terrain is vital. Now 2km square of Pripet Marshes ... no thats nightmare territory. Of course if you played "Iron Man" rules then any map could last you a very long time and do for operations. [iron man rules if I remember correctly are played in the 1st person. You go to each of your units and plot from level one for everything. Mind you its a lot better if you get into a house 'cos you can then plot from the second floor!!!] Not really recommended for large maps with very few troops and limited visibility - and or night battles. lol

Bumpity bump! Great resource. Fortunately maps very similar to UK maps so reading them no problem ... well apart from the language and the icons. I have downloaded a mountainous region and a flood plain just to get the feel of the terrain. Absolutely amazing. The holding site is worth exploring also. Thanks a lot

Very interesting information. Thank you Kipanderson for taking the time to provide the source information. A recent thread led to this MINE AND COUNTERMINE OPERATIONS IN THE BATTLE OF KURSK which details their similar thinking in respect of mobile mine laying regiments.Ties in very nicely with ATG groupings. Thanks guys

Have you tried cloning them to your hard drive? I am sure I did it to CMBO. I think I used CDclone made life very easy. This was pre CDV days

Have you tried cloning them to your hard drive? I am sure I did it to CMBO. I think I used CDclone made life very easy. This was pre CDV days

Until the last month or so I played exclusively TC/IP or network up to 2000 pts. and max 3 minute turns. Started playing my brother huge maps 3000pointers and TC/IP was not really practical. So we were playing PBEM and it is much more chess-like in that you weigh all options and indulge in point counting, checking views etc. CertainltTC/IP is an adrenaline rush and because humans play fast and inaccurately great fun. PBem , I currently have 5 on the go, seems very sedate but it does give you the chance to consider your tactics and learn from your successes and failures - something you might not have the time to do in TC/IP and especially network with very short period between the moves. Having played so much of the quick stuff I think I am too impetuous and do not develop my attacks correctly. Of course I never played scenarios - other than " A Deadly Affair" and relied very much on snap judgements and bluff to get me into the wins I managed playing quick games.

Sorry don't know the answer. You could try Tech support again with this new query. When posting if you say what version [CDV OR BFC] you are using and what machine capabilities you have - processor, memory , video set-up [MAc or PC] it would help narrow possible causes down.

hi This has come up before and no doubt a search might lead you to several threads. I think the upshot was that BFC said they were not doing it. I cannot remeber the reasoning but I supported it at the time. I think it goes along the lines that the player already has borg-spotting and this would just be another method for people to micro-manage their units. At company and battalion level you just send the guys out on broad missions and let the AI do the work until they hit trouble. If you play TC?IP games this works very well. The ethos is to play higher up than micro so though at times I curse I can live with it. Mind you I have played other games were people feel it is their solemn duty to work through their entire roster before completing each move - perhaps that colours my thinking. Life is to short. Play many games quick and dirty ... it's more fun.

I'll be speaking to you on Monday morning. In my office at 10.00 sharp. lol

Nashorn looks a little out of place. Great gun but virtually everything can kill it. Heavy?

Time frame wise my brother and I play Oct 43 -many games on huge maps with 3000 pts because you can afford to outflank your opponent. Terrain type and the size of map make a huge difference. Southern steppes and a medium map the soviets get creamed easily because there are no flanks and not much cover. Northern Russia rural with trees and hills it's anybody's ballgame. I suspect built=up areas Russian's could be great but I like fighting more open battles with movement, or let's face it the possibility of flanking someone makes the game much more exciting. Having 20 T34's in one battle was a hoot - great double envelopment marred slightly by the indestructible AT gun bug in v1.02. And the fact that all the flags were reasonably close, ... and he had 4 Tigers. But it is the terrain, size of map, choice of forces and your smarts that are in important