Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by BlackVoid

  1. Grenades are not useful against tanks.

    For tank killing, the Russians also have pioneers - satchel charges are deadly. Range is 29 (or is it 30?) meters and they rarely miss. They also work well for the Brits in CMAK. Other nations unfortunately have useless flamethrowers attached to pioneer platoons. Iinfantry FTs are useless in most situations and they just waste your very valuable support points. They can also kill tanks, but they are slow and prioritized by the TACAI.

  2. In a quick battle if multiple nationalities are used, the game selects one as the nationality for your side.

    Eg: you mix Italians with Germans and the game picks the German flag.

    How is it determined?

    I got weird results concerning this. I regularly buy some Hungarian units and sometimes the game selects the German flag when I have only a few German units. Other times I have a German force with a few select Hungarian units and the game picks the Hungarian flag. Is the flag randomly selected or is there a rule?

  3. AP projectiles contain no explosives, for these there are 2 basic factors.

    - Kinetic energy - this depends on speed and mass of the projectile. The speed depends mainly on the length of the gun (also quality), mass is mainly a function of caliber. Barrel length is indicated generally as the multiplication factor of the caliber.

    - Hardness - this is basically the quality of the ammo, the harder the projectile, the better the chance it will penetrate. Low quality armor shatters easier. This is one reason why most Soviet guns underperform.

    Tungsten shot is harder and weighs more = increased penetration.

    HC shot in the game is a charged projectile, it explodes on impact. Speed in this case is irrelevant and therefore the ammo has the same penetration values at all distances - at least in the game this is so.

    The Soviet 57mm AT gun is very long (L73), thus it has very high speed. That is why it is much better than the standard 76mm AT gun.

    Knowing what kills what and how (side/front, etc) is a daunting task. Stick to playing one narrow time period until you know the relative strength and weaknesses.

    Detailed unit databases:


    In the above tables with newer Excel versions you need to select all cells and set character color to black, otherwise they will look empty. Very useful at work where you do not have access to CM, but noone will complain if you are studying some large Excel tables. ;)

  4. I admit I was being stupid a bit :D

    The answer to the T-34 is a Hetzer (high XP).

    The answer to the SU-76: Hungarian 40mm AT and Hungarian Solothurn ATR - both cheap weapons and available up to April 1945.

    But if your opponent bought a pair of ISU-122s, you are totally screwed. I still do not like the armor point ratios, but some of the time it can be compensated.

    Overwatching infantry with a Stug? Well, I would happy to play you. A tank in plain sight is usually an invitation to disaster. The worst thing you can do is to let the enemy know where your tank is. A seen tank can be smoked, flanked or avoided. If you are outmatched in armor, suprise is absolutely crucial.

    The point difference matters most in meeting engagements and in periods when Russian armor is up to par with the Germans (early and late war). In defense you can compensate with guns + surprise, on the attack you have parity in armor.

    I still think it would have been better to make Russian tanks and AT guns cheaper instead of putting in a hard-coded point difference.

  5. Too bad, this thread was hijacked.

    Getting back to topic. In a meeting engagement the combined arms armor ratios are even worse than in an attack-defense situation. In a recent meeting, I had a lone Stug and against it were 3 Su76s, and 1 T-34/85. Ok, I had panzerfausts and a few shrecks, but my opponent was good enough to stay out of range. I even had an ATG - that was quickly disposed of by mortars. So how is one supposed to win an encounter like this with Axis??? The map was also bad for me, so I never had a chance at all.

    Smoke - you cannot have enough to matter, when your enemy is firing at your inf from 500 meters.

    Inf AT weapons - very hard to get close enough

    Vehicles - paper skinned, easily killed by ATGs

    AT guns - in a meeting engagement they are very vulnerable and very hard to put them into a useful spot

    Air power - way too expensive, especially for Axis

    There is no way to counter Soviet armor in this situation, except if your opponent makes mistakes.

  6. SMG half squads - now that is another nice gamey tactic.

    Back to armor points. I wish BFC employed some other solution to fix this and not with the point ratios. Unfortunately the effect of this imbalance mostly depends on the date and the terrain. For example early war it is a great advantage for the Soviets, later on a bit less so.

    A better and more logical way would have been to alter point costs. Eg: decrease cost (further) of Russian ATGs, tank hunter teams and also tanks compared to the German counterparts due to their lower quality. This solution would be more balanced and consistent than the current fixed, Soviets get 2x the armor (a bit less than 2x, but close).

  7. If you are my opponent, please not read this. ;-)

    Keyhole defense with guns: this is risky, especially if you have few guns, you may miss the enemy totally.

    Another idea is to place your tanks near your AT guns (or not near, but able to cover about the same area), but hidden. When you decide to open up with the gun, bring forward your tanks for a shoot and scoot, or delay your tank a bit and come up with a hunt order. This way you can reverse back during the next turn. The enemy tank will engage your gun or retreat and ideally this is when your tank comes out for a kill. Also your tank should have an armor cover arc set when coming out if there are other enemy units nearby.

    On many maps the attacker has a limited choice for placing his heavy weapons (guns and mortars). If you have mortar arty and you can spare some ammo, hit these places preemptively. If it is a wooded area, chances are good that you will KO mortars and guns. If there are multiple possible sites, then do not waste your ammo.

    If possible protect your AT guns with mortars nearby. If the enemy attacks you with his guns, you can react with mortar fire. For pillbox AT guns, mortar cover is a must. Place the mortar(s) next to the pillbox and set a cover arc for likely enemy heavy weapons placements.

    Hilltops are good, behind ridge is also good but a bit gamey, because the gun cannot be hit with direct fire.

    And finally gun placement is CRUCIAL. Most players place their guns in woods. This is a very bad idea and makes the gun much easier to kill by mortars and arty: TREEBURST. Place your guns in brush, rocky or open terrain in trenches and not too close any trees. On the attack rough is the best placement for guns. Only ever use trees if you have to move the guns into position during the game, otherwise you will be spotted.

    For infantry the same applies: on the defense do not use woods if it can be avoided, use trenches in other terrain instead.

  8. A competent player will not give you the chance to kill 2 vehicles with one gun. Your gun fires, kills a vehicle, next round mortar fire will rain on your AT gun. This usually means a KO AT gun within 1 minute.

    I understand some of the rationale for lower Axis armor points: Soviet inf has no tank killing capability and they also lack decent AT guns. So for tank killing, all the Russians have are their own tanks and air.

  9. QBs with point purchases are entirely artificial. What is more, points are artificial, QBs are artificial too.

    The purpose of this is to provide a way to fight balanced games, especially in multiplayer.

    "Your mistake is simply to consider "combined arms" some normal or "fair" setting; it is nothing of the kind. The historical armies did not fight with one vanilla mixture of armor to infantry for all purposes, and they did not divide the roles similarly across subtypes of their respective forces."

    I DO NOT AGREE. QBs and point purchases are not historical in any way. Combined arms is just artificial point ratio limits and nothing more. It has nothing to do with historical force composition (and it should not). But IT IS UNBALANCED. Other CM games (CMBO, CMAK) have the same point limits for both sides. CMBB is different, Axis gets much less armor points. What is the justification?

    "If you want a balanced fight between the armored forces of the two sides, use the "armor" force type with mechanized parent unit types - that is the PD vs. Tank Corps match up. Both sides will be able to spend up to half their point budget on armor."

    That is INCORRECT, with armor force type, the full budget can be spent on tanks.

  10. http://www.voltairenet.org/article162372.html

    "If left undisturbed, such nation-states like China and Russia, would dominate the global economy and, by extension, international politics.

    This is exactly what Anglo-American foreign policy has been trying to prevent for almost three centuries, first strictly under British clout and then later through combined British and American cooperation. In Europe, the containment policy was first applied to France for centuries and later, after German unification under Prince Otto von Bismarck, to Germany. Later the policy was expanded in scope to all Eurasia (the proper geographic extension of Europe or the “Continent”, as the British called it)."

    US/UK strategy is well-known by all geopolitical experts and it is hidden in plain sight - even official sources confirm it and describe it in detail. Just not every evening on CNN or on the first page of The New York Times. You have to look just a little bit harder than that. Besides, it is JUST PLAIN COMMON SENSE. If you are a peripheral power, you must keep the center divided. The objection, that no player can dominate Eurasia is a false one, based on the assumption that such domination would require military power and conquest. Not so. Domination can be achieved by economics, politics and self-interest of the involved states. The US Empire also employs these tools to a great extent.

    I am always amazed how well people in the west are conditioned by propaganda. If it is not spewing forth from the mass media 24/7, then it is not true, conspiracy, etc. The majority of people just parrot the official story without ever trying to look behind the curtains.

  11. Council on Foreign Relations Foreign Affairs article by Brzezinski from September/October 1997:

    ‘Eurasia is home to most of the world`s politically assertive and dynamic states. All the historical pretenders to global power originated in Eurasia. The world`s most populous aspirants to regional hegemony, China and India, are in Eurasia, as are all the potential political or economic challengers to American primacy. After the United States, the next six largest economies and military spenders are there, as are all but one of the world`s overt nuclear powers, and all but one of the covert ones. Eurasia accounts for 75 percent of the world`s population, 60 percent of its GNP, and 75 percent of its energy resources. Collectively, Eurasia`s potential power overshadows even America`s.

    ‘Eurasia is the world`s axial supercontinent. A power that dominated Eurasia would exercise decisive influence over two of the world`s three most economically productive regions, Western Europe and East Asia. A glance at the map also suggests that a country dominant in Eurasia would almost automatically control the Middle East and Africa. With Eurasia now serving as the decisive geopolitical chessboard, it no longer suffices to fashion one policy for Europe and another for Asia. What happens with the distribution of power on the Eurasian landmass will be of decisive importance to America`s global primacy….’


  12. Applying strategy and self-interest is not a conspiracy.

    The US/UK strategy is plainly explained in many places, even stated explicitly many times by members of the establishment. If you chose not to see it, that is your decision. Maybe you should read the Brzezinski book before you put on your tinfoil hat.

    Many contemporary and past events that seemingly do not make any sense, can be understood and explained if you understand the Great Game.


    It is still ongoing.

    If you think the US is after Osama and the Taliban in Afghanistan it is very hard to explain why it has not managed to make any progress.

  • Create New...