CombinedArms

I still play the AI more than some, but it's definitely secondary to PBEM play for me. I've played TCP a few times, but organizing it with the other player and blocking out uninterrupted time is close to impossible for me. So I think losing PBEM would be very bad news, from my perspective. Clearly, the issue is file size. And I understand that BFC doesn't want to hobble the game by limiting turns to a manageable file size. But I sure hope there's way to make this work without losing PBEM. [ February 27, 2005, 02:20 PM: Message edited by: CombinedArms ]

Consider it done, along with "South of Sword". I'll start working on it tonight. </font>

Lots of good suggestions from Kingfish. I am hoping he will someday remake WBW's "The Wrong Hill" from CMBO--a personal favorite of mine and by any measure a hell of a tank battle.

I almost always target rockets on the first turn in prepared bombardment mode on the theory that: 1) They're so inaccurate that knowing where the enemy actually is won't help much, so there is not much to gain by waiting till I probe enemy positions. 2) I want to shoot them off before my own men get very close. 3) In that case, LOS really doesn't matter because prep bombardments are always accurate. 4) If I want to delay the shoot a little, I can always add minutes to the firing time of the prep bombardment. The only time when you might want to get LOS to speed up the shoot is when a rocket FO arrives as a reinforcement. Then you've got to calculate the time it takes to get the FO into a good observation positionm (since they usually arrive to the rear) vs. the speed up of direct observation. It might be wise to try a Wicky strike...call in the target unobserved, then start walking toward the observation point. You can always cancel if the observed strike would be shorter (test length beforehand), so there's not much to lose by this tactic.

To comment on a few points in turn, answering Dook first: 1) No, I believe the timer in CMBB and CMAK is "what you see is what you get". The time for a blind strike in the latter two games is longer than an observed strike and ticks off accurately. 2) One way to get that flexibility Dook speaks of is to start an FO out away from observation, then walk him toward the desired observation point. This seems to open some interesting possibilities for experimentation. 3) Yes, Redwolf, this is an unrealistic system but it's what we have to live with till CM2X and understanding how it works helps one to avoid its worst features. 4) I think I know how we got here; if we follow the progression from CMBO, it basically makes sense, even though the end product is less than ideal. A) In CMBO, blind strikes were generally accurate. There was a longer delay, but most of the time they landed on target. An off target blind strike could happen, but it was rare. Lets assume that the moment of observation worked just as it does in CMBB and AK. It wouldn't really matter because most strikes, blind and observed are on target, and the blind strike has already paid it's price with the delay. In CMBB, BFC decided that blind strikes weren't sufficiently penalized. Now most blind strikes are going to be off target. BUT, since there's no dust, as TB observes, there's rarely a situation where the target becomes unexpectedly obscured at the "spotting round" moment. C) IN CMAK the same arty model is used as in CMBB. It had worked OK there, so why change it for what was supposed to be a minor re-do? BUT, the introduction of DUST creates this unexpected problem with the precise moment of the firing of the spotting round being the key to accuracy. My guess is that in a game of this complexity, BFC never realized that they'd introduced a new element that made their arty model (unchanged in this one respect since CMBO) problematic. And since they didn't realize they'd created a problem, they never explained it in the manual. Ultimately, I just see it as a problem we have to live with until CMx2 and am grateful to TB and Wicky, among others for helping to make things more workable.

I decided to test Wicky's suggestion and it works! To keep it simple, I used a US 81mm FO, placed him on one side of a bank of large buildings, and had him spot to a point on the far side of the buildings, out of LOS. The spotting time was four minutes with a black line to the target. Then he simply walked through the building on turn two, at some point acquiring LOS to the target. The spotting time wasn't shorted at all due to the fact that he had direct LOS, but on the other hand, the spotting round ticked off his ammo count at precisely 30 seconds from firing time and the mission was right on target. Later, he targeted in the other direction, toward what was now the far side of the buidling, again with no LOS, then walked back through the building, acquiring LOS as he went. Again, the spotting round took off at 30 seconds and the mission was on target. So, I'm convinced that Wicky is right and that TB's thesis is also correct--in terms of the accuracy of the fire mission, the only thing that counts is having direct LOS at the moment the spotting round is fired.

John K, I think all would agree that the way it works is problematic--certainly not the ideal situation by any means from the standpoint of realism. I'm not sure, however, that the player has to look frantically for the spotting round. As TB says, the only important question from a play standpoint is whether the round is fired at all. If you have 81mm that starts firing with no spotting round being deducted, before firing for effect starts, from the numerical count--then cancel the mission and start again with a blue line. For 105, it should shoot two rounds (but the first one is what matters.) Green line retargetting won't work if the round doesn't shoot. If the spotting round is fired at the right moment, on the other hand, even if off target, the fire mission will be on target. As TB says, the critical moment is the precise second when the first spotting round should fire. If LOS is clear to the target at that second, the mission will be on target. Otherwise, it not only will be off target, but it can't be salvaged without cancelation. This is problematic indeed, but what we have to live with till CM2x.

I remember TB155 writing up this research shortly after CMAK came out (the demo with all the PzIIIs vs Grants had lots of problems with dustclouds blocking arty observation, as I recall.) It's helped me ever since. But I never knew the wrinkle about the 60 and 30 second spotting round times. Thanks for sharing. (Other Means should know that TB did very extensive research on this at that time. I would trust his conclusions.) BTW, the info about the "Target Wide" creating a circular rather than eliptical pattern is news to me--that could come in handy in certain tactical situations. TB, can you clarify a bit the diameter of the Target Wide circle? How does it compare to the length of the regular Target elipsis?

What makes this concept interesting, IMHO, is flipping it around, since, as many have noted, the eventual Allied invasion of Normandy in many ways mirrored this proposed invasion of Cornwall. I agree with the majority that the Germans couldn't do it because: 1. they lacked air superiority and their main fighter, the ME-109, lacked the range to reach Cornwall. 2. The RN would have chopped their seaborn transport into little bits. 3. Any troops surviving the sealift to Cornwall would then have to fight their way out of some very difficult country. (I'm a US native but have visited Cornwall and seen the roadnet for myself. Yikes!) So the Germans, who wisely (or cravenly) backed off from crossing from Calais to Dover, would never in a million years have tried to fight their way to London from Penzance. My sense is that the Germans had a very clear idea of the diffculties, for them, of an invasion of Cornwall. And they applied that sense of difficulties to what they thought was Allied thinking. They assumed the distance to Normandy would daunt the Allies. (It didn't--after all, they'd covered thousands of miles in the Pacific.) The Allies had no fear of the sea; had enhanced the range of their fighters; had developed the art of airborne warfare well beyond the German practice of late 1940, AND had a firm conviction that if they could once get safely lodged on the European continent, they would win the war. On the the other hand, the Allies did have a healthy fear of the German defenses around Calais and the channel ports. When it came to the Normandy invasion, the German high command (and not just Hitler) took council of their own fears, rather than accurately reading the fears (and the areas of confidence) in their opponents.

Wet Triangle is quite a name. Almost as good as Squeezing the Melons. Put 'em together and what have you got? Sorry, I just remembered that this is a family forum.

A platoon of infantry in halftracks can sometimes be effective in applying the coup de grace to an enemy position that is almost but not quite overwhelmed. At the point when decide to send them in--they've been comfortably resting out the battle behind cover to this point-- you're sure you've taken out all the AT assets within line of sight and your footsoldiers have fought the defenders to the point of collapse--but maybe your men are starting to stagger a bit, too, and their ammo is getting low. If, at this point, you rush in your reserve platoon in half tracks, landing them in cover near the enemy line of resistance, the fresh platoon with full ammo, combined with the HT firepower, can cause an immediate defensive collapse. Then you have your fresh platoon ready to spearhead the next phase of the advance. I haven't managed to pull this sort of thing off very often, but it can be very cool when it works.

Tigrii, Like Redwolf, I'm puzzled by your claim that it's "unikely" for the defender to have "a shielded lateral movement area behind your MLR." I pretty much always have such an area (or areas) and construct my MLR in such a way to be sure I have it. Sometimes it comes from trees, sometimes hills, sometimes buildings (or often a combination of the three) but one test of the positioning of an MLR is that it provide for that shielded lateral movement in the rear area, along with covered lines along which reinforcements can move forward and attacked units can retreat. Covered lines of communication with the rear may be hard to create in the desert (though even there you might have dunes, etc.) but they should be available anywhere else. It's hard for me to imagine conducitng a defense without such covered lines of communication.

I used to play a board game called Diplomacy which as I recall was mostly about manipulating and betraying your opponents (and former real-life friends), building to a position of overwhelming power where you could miliarily whomp them. Not much compassion there, either.... BTW, JC_Hare, I got into the first tourney off the reserve list and have since played in them all, so the reserve list is not a bad place to be.

Thanks, John, I have received responses from all the other players in the section. Good to know that Andrew will be with us soon.

I think if you add to the thread title (or indicate in a new thread) that you're looking for a few players to be reserves, you will get them in no time. Lots of people may be assuming that the tourney is already closed by now and they're not going to wade to page nine in order to find out there are still a few openings. But...let people know and they will come.