Steve McClaire

I'm no expert on the historical development of the Romanian army, but I do remember reading that the pre-WW2 officer corps was heavily influenced by it's WWI experience, close relationship with the French army, and a primarily defensive outlook. They may have felt they needed this many men in a platoon gave them an advantage in an attritional / trench warfare situation (lots of ammo bearers for the LMG and lots of men to stand up to heavy casualties).

For a relatively important issue (at least for those of us who like to play 1941-42 scenarios, where German infantry is often forced into close combat with T-34s) this thread seems to have languished a long time. Has there been any 'official' BTS rebuttal of the canister vs. shrapnel data put forth in this thread?

I don't have historical accounts to back it up, but it seems like if a soldier has a weapon that can affect an enemy bunker, then he might try and use it. I assume this code issue is also the reason AT rifles will not fire at trucks, jeeps, or other non-armored vehicles? Thanks for your time. Awesome game, btw. Steve

I believe engineers in CMBO/BB clear minefields using explosives, by blowing one or two safe lanes in the minefield, rather than dealing with each and every mine. As for wire, I think the wire in CMBB represent fairly significant obstacles, constructed over a wooden frame with a LOT of wire crisscrossing it in a thick web -- difficult to cut through even with explosives, though I would think it would be possible within the scope of a CMBB battle. Perhaps just an engine limitation.

MadMatt, Thanks for your response. I think I understand what you're saying but it does not appear to match up to what I am seeing. Perhaps you are using a different tank? Try this -- Create a simple scenario with 2 groups of 5 German wooden MG bunkers, 2 green Soviet M4A2 tanks, and 1 elite Soviet sniper (to spot for the tanks). Give 1 Sherman 20 AP ammo and the other 20 HE ammo. Set up the two groups of bunkers and the Shermans so the tanks are roughly the same distance from the targets, and the sniper in between somewhere so he can see both (I can send you a version of this I used if you like). I was seeing the HE tank kill 2-3 bunkers before it ran out, while the AP tank would kill all 5 with a few rounds left over. Also, any thoughts on the AT rifles firing on wooden bunkers? It seems like the AT rifles think the bunker is a soft target, and won't shoot at it. Thanks, Steve

Another note on this -- Soviet AT rifle teams would not fire on the wooden bunker at all.

I believe this is probably a bug. Did not find any report of it w/ forum search. I had a Soviet M4A2 Sherman and ordered it to fire on a German wooden MG bunker. The first time I targeted it the game said the hit chance was 10% and the kill chance LOW. The tank then proceeded to fire HE at the bunker, never hit it, and did no damage at all. After a few turns of this I had the Sherman engage other targets. Once it ran out of HE I tried re-targeting the bunker (the tank had not moved) and was told the hit chance was now 40%, kill OK. One turn later the bunker had been penetrated 3-4 times and was knocked out. It seems the AI is selecting the wrong ammo type here.

I suppose that could be a problem for quick battles, but I am talking about the scenario editor, where you can add as many battalions as you want. Suppose I want to create a historical battle with an infantry company supported by attached MG platoon - there is no easy way to do this. I can kludge it and select an infantry platoon, delete all squads, and then buy a couple of machine guns, but this is a workaround for a limitation that doesn't need to be there in the scenario editor.

In the CMBB scenario editor, the only way you can get a heavy weapons company is if you buy it as part of the entire battalion. This requires you to have the battalion HQ in the battle just to get the heavy weapons company. This didn't used to be the case in CMBO, which makes me wonder if this was an intentional feature change or not. If so, I would like to request that it be changed back to the old way.

You can already import the saved game for a partially played battle into a Quick Battle, but it doesn't load units (at least in the test I did). But as long as importing into the scenario editor was restricted only to COMPLETED battles (i.e. saved while viewing the map after the debrief/AAR screen) you wouldn't be learning anything new, as you'd already have seen what the enemy had.

I was playing Boriskova Station as Soviets and noticed that I can not target anything beyond 400m with the M17 halftrack -- the range ruler says 'OUT OF RANGE'.

While the feature allowing you to load a map AND units into Quick Battles is useful for people who want to play Quick Battles on custom maps, it is no help for those of us trying to do campaigns games around CMBB battles. Being able to load the saved game file for a completed battle into the scenario editor would make this feature useful for meta-campaign type games, too.

Sharpshooters were completely suicidal individuals, a fact widely (and ruthlessly) taken advantage of by commanders in all armed forces of WW2. The sharpshooter would be equipped with a long range rifle and camo gear -- but instead of standing off to shoot individual soldiers at long range, they were sent forward in 'waves' of 3-4 in front of every attack. Each man was (somehow) equipped with a radio and could thus relay immediate and precise spotting reports to all friendly units. Given their suicidal nature and the ruthless drive of their commanders, most snipers would dash right into the enemy forward (or even MLR) positions without a second thought, even going right into friendly artillery fire. The sharpshooter charge revealed enemy positions without undue risk to other friendly troops, and if the sharpshooter somehow survived first contact, he would plunge into the enemy rear area looking for more targets, until he inevitably became a casualty. The only notable exception to this practice that I know of was the preference of some Allied commanders for using waves of unarmed jeeps instead of sharpshooters.

I'd like to see the 'settable' global morale breaking point, too. The AI wouldn't necessarily have to be modified to take this into account, either. As long as the scenario is designed for the AI to play one side (and if the AI is going to do reasonably well they pretty much have to be) the designer can take this into account.

While I don't feel qualified to give exact percentages, I think most units can be classified in CM experience terms pretty easily, based mostly on their combat experience and their historical performance in whatever battle you're simulating. Taking a shot at Normandy for the US Army, I'd say US 82nd Airborne and US 1st Infantry were probably the only 'veteran' US formations. The 82nd might have some 'Crack' units. US 9th Infantry had also seen combat, and would probably be 'Regular' with some 'Veteran' units. All other US units would be 'Regular', IMO (101st Airborne, 4th Infantry, 29th Infantry) possibly with some sub-units 'Green'. US 90th Infantry would be all 'Green'. Experience levels have to be taken in context, though. I make the above suggestions based on most of the German Infantry units in Normandy being 'Regular' or 'Green'.

Totally off-topic, but ... Eric Young? Is there a Mad Bunny in the house?

US parachute battalions had an 81mm mortar battery, so it is possible a company (as the battalion main effort) would get them as fire support. I think it's unlikely a company or two of paratroops would get the 75mm howitzers in support unless they were attempting something really important. But you never know -- US artillery was pretty flexible, and if they were in a desperate situation, paratroops around Utah could probably have gotten all sorts of stuff as emergency artillery support. As for AT guns, I believe both divisions landed (or attempted to) about half their AT batteries by glider (which would be about 16 x 57mm AT guns). The rest coming in w/ the glider battalions and the other seaborne parts of the division.

Both the 82nd and 101st had some divisional artillery come in by glider (75mm pack howitzers) on the first night, though the night glider landings were not very successful. After D-Day both divisions were also reinforced with the rest of their divisional units (landing via Utah beach) as well as an additional Field Artillery battalion (probably 105mm) attached on D-Day or shortly thereafter (101st had one attached to them very late on D-Day, 82nd by D+2).

IMO, the fact that buildings are slightly easy to knock down is not the whole problem. What seems 'unrealistic' to me is the way building damage is 'all or nothing' -- either the building is fully intact, or it explodes like a bomb and collapses to rubble. While some buildings might have a sudden, catastrophic collapse like this, I would expect most would gradually be reduced to rubble and not fall down in such a dramatic and damaging (to the units inside) way. It's also irritating when infantry will automatically run out of a damaged building as it nears catastrophic collapse -- usually right into heavy fire, which kills them. I think both contribute to the lack of realism. In most cases (especially large heavy buildings) infantry should be a lot better off just hunkering down in the building as it's being shelled, and not suffer horrendously when the entire thing is finally reduced to rubble (unless maybe they're on the top floor or something). If this happened then how much damage a building can take wouldn't be as much of a gameplay issue.

A very interesting idea. Also, keeping track of which unit is which is relatively easy -- use the scenario editor to 'name' each unit. So an infantry squad standing in for a battalion might be named "1/3RCT", "I./1058 Rgt", or something like that. You can then tell what you unit are deleting in the unit list of the scenario editor.

I've had some success getting the AI to use FO teams, but only by designing the scenario with this problem in mind. If you put FO teams towards the rear, in positions with good, long-range LOS, and they spot enemy troops within the first few turns, they will usually stay put and call fire. In terms of AI use, the worst place to put FO teams seems to be at the front line, where they are usually killed before they can get their guns firing (don't let the AI place units or you will likely get this sort of setup). The time I've seen the AI reliably call fire with AFOs is if it spots a towed gun of any kind. This will draw every piece of artillery the AI has, and is actually a nice, gamey strategy to get the AI to waste it's artillery on some light gun early in a battle. :>

Like all things in CMBO, I think it depends on whether you are using it, or abusing it. Setting fire to a couple of buildings is not necessarily gamey, but setting fire to large parts of the map is, IMO. CM's fire is very predictable -- all fires are exactly 20x20 sq. meters, the fires never burn out, they never spread, the smoke never blows downwind, etc. This is fine in small doses, where the affect on the battle is minimal (which I assume was the standpoint the developers approached their design from) but becomes unrealistic if you are dealing with large doses. As an extreme example, imagine buying a large number of flamethrowers and setting a wall of fire across the map, leaving your opponent only a few narrow paths (or maybe even no paths at all) through the flame, which you can now easily defend. Wouldn't that be fun?

Since we're tossing out our 2 cents on reinforcements, I'd like to have the ability (as a scenario designer) to set up the exact formation that reinforcements arrive in. Yes, I know you can select wedge, vee, or column, but you still have no control over where in the formation each unit ends up.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pak40: ...I guess the problem with moving in reverse is that the AT gun is treated as a leg unit and not a vehicle, therfore it has no ability to go into reverse in CM. But, when you think about it, any leg unit should also be able to go in reverse (backing up while watching for the enemy, for example)...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You know, this would be a REALLY nice feature to have for infantry units. An excellent idea and one I'd also love to see in CMBB or later versions.

I'm no great authority, but have you tried saving all the PBEM files and asking for your opponents password once the game is over? This way you can review the whole battle and look at the 'big picture' of how things unfolded. Look for where, when, and how the enemy got the better of you, and where, when, and how you made your own mistakes.