Vinci

Whether ineffective or not, I assume everyone agrees that during WWII infantry did try and take on armor with close range weapons. I find it more palatable if this command can actually be given instead of trying to make the same thing happen by attempting to run the squad out to a spot near the tank and hope they will get the general idea by the time they get to the spot.

What is a BADCO randomizer? I am going on holiday from tomorrow until 2nd Jan. If you still have not found someone by then, e-mail me a set-up for a 1500 ME at Kamer_vincent@hotmail.com and we will get cracking (I guess I should not be replying here either, sorry but am in a hurry)

the 65% ceasefire idea came in discussion with a friend of mine - we were both concerned at the fact that untis just kept on fighting till they disintegrated. We felt that after losses of 1/3rd most commanders would call it a day (there are exceptions of course and if you want to picture particularly fanatic troops you might indeed want to lower the limit to 50% or less). What it does, it makes people very aware of losses and attrition. So approaches are planned more carefully (reckless recon & running out in the open is seldom seen). Pull backs to safer places/cover are considered more quickly. Artillery preparation (if available) is highly sought after. It also shortens the game - the mopping up end game does not occur (which is not my favourite part anyway, and avoids the hidden crew popping up to claim the flag syndrome). I have tried it a few times now and find it appealing.

Thanks for the tips. How do I see what type of panzerfaust it is (did any still use the type 30 in 44/45?)? Does it make any difference if I target the tank? A leader in the vicinity? I guess most of it is just hope & pray

do you know what is likely to trigger the AI?

128 RAM, Pentium III, 20 Giga memory

I haver been trying to figure out how to get my squads to use their panzerfausts, but don't seem to be able to figure it out. Anyone out there found a reliable system?

I know that CMBB is not due to be released until q2 2002 (how does 22nd june sound like a release date?), but I am trying to figure out if my current computer will be able to handle it. Any information on what the hardware requirements need to be to be able to handle CMBB? Thanks

Have tried various things. Depends also on how much time you want to invest. If you want some quick joy - a 500 pointer against the AI at 25-30 turns on a small-medium map is fun for a game of a couple of hours. I have tried a 5000 pointer 60 turns huge map. Basicall breaks down into many sperate battles and I do not like the omniscience bit, where all untis know everything about the whole front. My preferred type at the moment is a 1500 pointer against opponent on a medium map with 60 turns and a gentlemans rule to activate ceasefire option when morale drops below 65%. This gives you a reinforced company force on a map size that conceivable would allow units to be sufficiently close to eachother to be coordinated very closely (as you are able to in cmbo). The 60 turns (=1 hour of game time) just says you can take the time you want - rush if you need to, prepare slowly if you want to - depends on your strategy.

That depends what your shooting at and from how far. ATR's were quite widespread at the beginning of the war, with several nationalities having them. Caliber went all the way up to 20mm (for the Finns). With that caliber you could hurt most armored things that were driving around in 40/41.

I think we all agree CM is a great improvement on anything else that was out there before (otherwise we would not be writing/reading here). That does not mean it cannot be further improved. While it is unlikely we will ever get the level of un-control of real life (which would indeed take out some of the fun as well - kind of: give some basic orders and then watch a 30 minute movie...), a lower level of control than what is currently available is probably beneficial. I like the idea of disruption levels as well (is used in some wargames to simulate decreased levels of combat efficiency). I would also plead for a more penalizing approach to casualties. Currently most games tend to go on until one or both sides have been reduced to about 10% of their combat potential. While did this happen in extreme circumstances (stalingrad or so), mostly units would basically stop/retreat when casualties got too high. Chatting about this with a friend of mine we were discussing using a rule that when morale reaches 60-65%, that player would immediatly request/enable the cease fire option. So as soon as both sides reach that level the game would stop. If a similar thing could be automatically integrated (maybe influenced some modifiers and probabilities), that would not be a bad thing

I agree with the fact that we currently still know too much about the enemy (the classical example is of course the gun hit, when all of the sudden noone fears that tank anymore) - so I too look forward to extreme FOW. As for playing dead... that is one of the reasons most german tankers fired additional shots into immobile tanks (when they had time to). Not only did that make sure they were really dead, but also it made sure that these tanks would be hard-impossible to repair once the battle was over.

same here, better FO faster response time - no change to effect or balst area (seems logical to me). In my view faster response time is an advantage whatever the caliber. What is interesting though is the importance of the advantage which you get out of it. Generally in defence where you want to react rapidly to oncoming threats it is probably more important than in attck of entrenched positions where you have all time you need to call down a hail of lead on the enemy. Vinci

I like the idea of increasing fog of war possibilities in CM2. As players I feel we still have too much control and information when compared to "the real life commander". Some additions I see are: 1. less info on effects of hits on armor. Just yesterday I hit a Hetzer with gun hit. The hetzer moved on, but I knew it was not really a threat anymore. 2. experience levels. I do not believe we should know of the opponent short of capturing some. I believe restrictions in terms of view of terrain (as are being suggested here) can also be considered, especially for the attacking side in enemy territory - a lot of timesd they had just maps (some not even that accurate) to go on. If people feel uncomfortable with it can, as now, be included as an option. If you don't like it - turn the option off. Vinci

BTS - it seems that you have got a lot of reactions from the gamers in germany. Since I have some german family, maybe I qualify to answer as well. Have you had any problems to date? The current material does include the odd word about Waffen SS and related topics. Nothing that would frighten me, but if you believe some of the comments, could maybe be borderline. I guess you may know how many games you have sold to germany. If the number is significant and you have not had any reaction, it is at least a sign that there is nothing dramatic happening. Not what you would call an ironclad guarantee... but maybe it helps Vinci

a couple of years back we had a ASL get together in the Ardennes. We stayed near La Gleize in the Chateau Froidcourt (well euh the old servants quarters actually... just beds/no breakfast). This was a very nice touch - the chateau itself having been a command post/hospital for part of Peipers troops. In La Gleize itself you will find a King Tiger with Bazooka marks on its front hull. If you want try a bigger place go for Bastogne. It has a big memorial + museum to do with the ardennes offensive and is quite centrally located in the ardennes for trips to see different sites. And there are more places to stay or eat and there is more to look at than a couple of cows and a shack... Bon voyage Vinci

is there any particular reason that foxholes cannot be dug during the game?

if you're a rookie pilot you probably won't even know what a tiger looks like.... Actually one of the big problems encoutered with air support was the chance of mistaken attacks. A good number of people got hit by "friendly fire" (even as recently as the gulf war), that is why they started plastering big flags on them to avoid air attacks by their own side. In essense, air support is one big gamble - they may not show up, the probably won't attack what you want them to attack and if you are very unlucky they will drop a bomb on you. So don't buy them. Great for show though!

I liked the article, it hits a lot of good points. I guess the main driver of choice is the type of engagment you have. In an offensive I think it pays to "put the gun on wheels" - light armor or tanks. AT teams work at such short ranges that except for really clutered terrain or towns they rarely get much opportunity - generally therefor it ends up as armor chasing armor. Defensively ATG are a very good idea - esp if there are some "must pass here" points - eg bridges, objective hexes etc. LAst but not least, I find that arty & mortars can sometimes be used in an antitank role against light armor - esp halftracks/OT vehicles.

Thanks for the tip on changing parameters, I'll see how it works. As an old ASL hand, I have played with the campaign rules of ASL. These provide an interesting system to generate "next battle setup areas". The basic principle is that there a number of key locations (mostly buildings, fortifications, objective hexes). At the end of battle these locations (and its immediate surrounding area -ZOC) are controlled by the last side who passed through it or occupies it. Then there is a redrawing of the map into areas controlled by either side. In this process key locations (with touching ZOC's) can be linked to each other to create larger areas (and only troops actualy occupying these areas can set up again inside that area). This will sometimes create pockets of troops cut off from the rest. If control of a key location is disputed, it becomes controlled by neither side - in effect no mans land. I am no computer programmer, but how could this be translatted into game mechanics for CM?

I've played a couple of operation scenarios and noticed that the way start up territory is allocated following each battle seems to be a bit odd. Sometimes you get whole stretches of ground added where you have never been. Other times you've just slugged yourself to death to capture a couple of blocks of houses and find your frontline way back. Can anyone explain the logic being used to me?