gredeker

Here's the list of potentially gamey tactics put forth by TreeBurst for the Rumblings of War tourney: POTENTIALLY Gamey Tactics 1) Setting fire to "squares" or buildings unoccupied by enemy troops, ESPECIALLY to deny a VL or covered access to one. 2) Advancing large formations along the map edge. 3) Scouting with AT teams, crews of knocked out vehicles or guns, MG teams, and anybody who is "low" on ammo. 4) Recon with light (cheap) vehicles well into enemy territory. 5) Exposing AT teams SOLEY for the purpose of drawing enemy fire. 6) Ordering vehicle and gun crews to participate in an attack or hunt down enemy teams or spotters. 7) Rushing infantry straight at a known enemy position (especially through cover) with no supporting/suppressive fire.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>what do you view it representing?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Keeping in mind that it's abstracted, I tend to think that it's the resulting dust cloud from when the building finally collapses. It would make sense then if the large buildings cause more damage - stone and bricks weigh more than 2x4 16" O.C. construction.

I'm sure some grog will jump in with a link to an old thread on this subject, but here goes... CM internally tracks fire resolution/location down to the meter. So being on the far side of the building (further away from the blast) will reduce casualties. I also know that units on an upper floor generally take higher casualties when the building goes up. And, though it scarcely need be said, the bigger the blast value of the attacking ordnance, the higher the casualties. I don't have a lot of evidence to back it up, but my impression is that the large heavy buildings (including the church) cause the greatest casualties when they finally go, and the small light buildings cause the least casualties - and I'm talking just about the damage caused by the building, not the shot that destroyed it (because you can get a lot further away in a church than in a small building). Hard numbers? I have no idea. I do know that when my troops start bailing out of a building, it's generally for good cause. Somebody please elaborate with some facts and figures, please.

To clarify, I didn't intend that throwing the DC would automatically bring down a building (although it might very well do that for a small light one). I just wanted the ability to tell the engineers "try to take out that building". Hmmm, maybe this could be the beginning of expanded engineer targetting. I'm not sure how "smart" the LOS/targetting tool is, but it would sure be nice to have a context-specific Y/N choice come up when using engineers. For example, you tell an engineer to area target a building - it should ask "use demo charge Y/N". You tell an engineer to area target some adjacent wire - it should ask "attempt to clear wire Y/N". You area target adjacent mines - it should ask "attempt to clear mines Y/N". In short, it would be nice to gain the capability to tell the engineers to perform specific "engineer-only" tasks within the game.

HD - hull down AT - anti-tank AP - either armor piercing or anti-personnel, depending on context SPG - self-propelled gun HT - halftrack FO - forward observer HVAP - hyper velocity armor piercing (dense tungsten core with a fixed light alloy sheath) APDS - armor piercing discarding sabot (dense tungsten core with a light alloy sheath that drops away after the round leaves the barrel)

Bumpity bump...

I've only tried Hummels a couple of times, and mine always seemed to die quickly from an enemy .50 cal MG. Thus, I don't buy it anymore. I much prefer the StuH becuase of the armor, secondary MG armament, and limited HEAT anti-tank ability.

Sounds like something for a future iteration of CM (2? II?), but it seems like it should be pretty easy. Program it so that when an engineer squad is told to area target a building, it comes up with the prompt "Use demo charge? (Y/N)" similar to when telling a tank to area target; when the building is destroyed, the target order when then be canceled, just as with a tank. That's my $0.02. [ 08-23-2001: Message edited by: redeker ]

Thanks, dfgardner. It helps to hear from someone with "Real Life Experience". Most of my military knowledge is from books, the odd museum, and of course CM and ASL.

I recall reading somewhere (sorry, no references handy) that one of the other reasons the Germans phased out RRs (in addition to the monstrous backblast) is because they used 3 to 4 times as much propellant as a standard artillery shell. Of course, this was late in the war, when they were having shortages of all kinds of strategic materials... Another analogy I read was to think of it as a giant bazooka (sometimes on a tripod), only the round is spin-stabilized instead of fin-stabilized for better long range accuracy and all the propellant is burned before the round leaves the tube. IIRC, (and this is only for comparison) modern ATGMs like the TOW have two rocket motors - a small one to get the round out of the tube and a ways downrange from the launcher, then a main motor to carry the missile to the target.

To respond to the original question, I have a PIII-450, 128MB, 13GB HD, and 16MB TNT video card. I've downloaded a few mods, but not tons, and the game works great on my system. I do have to set the trees on the lowest setting (not just tree bases, but the lowest number of trees), which makes scrolling around a lot easier. If you haven't tried it, load up a large wood scenario then toggle between the various tree settings to see how it affects scrolling around - you may be surprised at how much hard your system works to render that leafy green stuff.

I'll have to agree with others on this list: #50 is a fantastic rating for a niche-oriented game like CM. Wargamers only make up a small percentage of the general population. Many of the wargamers I know personally are not computer-centric enough to want to trade in their dice and chits for a CD-ROM. Add in the fact that nearly all CM players are firmly in the post-pubescent category (aka "not most games' target demographic") and #50 is pretty amazing.

I'll have to agree with others on this list: #50 is a fantastic rating for a niche-oriented game like CM. Wargamers only make up a small percentage of the general population. Many of the wargamers I know personally are not computer-centric enough to want to trade in their dice and chits for a CD-ROM. Add in the fact that nearly all CM players are firmly in the post-pubescent category (aka "not most games' target demographic") and #50 is pretty amazing.

Not to belabor the obvious, but VG squads have fewer men per squad and need to get close to be effective. If you're always playing games with "moderate" or better tree coverage and/or significant hills, then the short range of their firepower doesn't pose an issue. But try to cross 250 meters of open ground, when the VG squads are getting hammered and can't effectively fire back, and things are a little different. Likewise, on defense, German squads with 2 LMGs (like motorized panzer grenadiers) will start pounding attacking infantry 250 meters out and keep pounding them all the way in. It really comes down to terrain, your personal playing preferences and your tactical deployment of the different squad types. I will agree with you that the standard Rifle squads, while historically accurate, are the least effective and the last kind of infantry that I buy.

I like the Ostwind, but I've only used it a couple of times. What really stands out about both vehicles is their rapid fire capability. You can pump two or three bursts into an enemy vehicle while they're turning to engage you. The Ostwind is guaranteed to take out any allied light armor, and have a good chance of damaging some of the intermediate stuff (like M5 lights and M8 HMCs). It's also a wonderful infantry stopper, and is second only to a HMG pillbox in its ability to stop an infantry rush - which is probably why they get abused and thrown into the gamey category. For fun, I put 1000 points of Ostwinds up against 2000 points of halftracks on good tank country. Every single HT was dead by the end of turn 1. [ 08-17-2001: Message edited by: redeker ]

Corn55, FWIW, it seems like Combat Mission's following is largely composed of older (20+ up to retirees), fairly well-educated WWII nuts (many with military experience), with WAY too much time on their hands to post lengthy replies on this forum explaining why a) they're right, and you're wrong. (Rexford comes to mind... ) BTW, you'll know when you're no longer a newbie when you laugh at that last bit. Welcome aboard. You'll find the investment well worth your time, and I'm sure there are lots of folks on the board who'd love to teach you tactics the hard way. [ 08-17-2001: Message edited by: redeker ]

Looks great. I would add one more thing - another row underneath the firepower row, which divides the firepower at each range by the regular platoon cost - i.e., cost per point of firepower at each of the ranges. Keep up the good work!

If you want to know exactly how far you can push things without getting into trouble, look at some of the recent materials put out by Critical Hit, like the 48-56 Arab-Israeli War module. Has a rockin' campaign game for the battle of Jerusalem in 48 - you too can try to blow up the Dome of the Rock!

Hasbro wanted to use the SL/ASL name for their excellent computer Squad Leader game, and didn't want anyone to get confused, especially if a third party adaptation of existing ASL scenarios using a superior game system produced far superior results. [Quickly advances rearward and dives into his foxhole]

Sounds like a great idea to me in the abstract. It sort of reminds me of the additional strategic element in Red Barricades (and for those of you who don't know, its the best ASL :eek: module, dealing with a 30 day street fight in Stalingrad) where force conservation is a big factor. Issues I see potentially causing at least a few headaches: 1. How to deal with casualties in squads. To what extent would a squad be restored if one or more members become casualties? Would you return all surviving squads to full strength (even if down to one man), or would you just condense the number of surviving infantry into full squads? What would be done with any remaining fraction? What about casualties among multiple types of squads? 2. How to deal with wounded weapons team members. Say you end up with multiple MG42 HMG teams each with only one man - would you combine the multiple teams into one full-strength team? Would you declare them immobile in the next game? 3. Tracking purchases/paperwork. The honor system will have to work for those who participate, and even then it will be a huge paperwork chore to keep track of everyone's available units - to say nothing of tracking different status of those units. If the ground rules can be laid out clearly and the administrative overhead tolerated and the players remain honest then it will work. One suggestion: If you go this route, I would suggest a smaller force pool, like 5000 points to play six battles of up to 1,500 points each. That way force conservation REALLY becomes an issue. I would think people would still bring 1,500 points worth of stuff to each party, but would probably hold at least a third in reserve to see if/when it's needed. That's my $0.02. I feel the need to go stare at my Red Barricades map board now... I wonder if Steve mentioned whether any of the large building tiles for CM:BB would have collapsed roofs and/or rooftop capability...

I'm also away from my sources right now, so take this with a grain of salt... The Porsche turret had a shot trap on the turret front, which was curved (much like an early model Panther) and was thus phased out in favor of the Henschel turret, which had no such trap. The Porsche Tiger I, IIRC, was built on an assumption that he would win the contract - and so, in best aggressive capitalist style , started his production run before the ink was on the contract. Unfortunately for him, the contract went to Henschel (?), leaving him with 80+ chassis which were then completed as the Ferdinand/Elefant. IIRC, one of the reasons the Porsche design was not chosen was that it was a gasoline/electric design (much like a diesel/electric locomotive) which used large electric motors to drive the treads; these motors were in turn powered by a generator attached to the gasoline engine. The design was finicky, slow, and worst of all, used up an extraordinary amount of copper, a scarce strategic metal, in the generator and motors.

I tend to avoid plain rifle platoons, as their firepower is usually deficient. As Germans, I go for any squad that has two LMGs (the motorized infantry being my favorite). As allies, American rifle platoons are fine, but the British platoons pretty much suck except for the paratroops. Call me gamey if you will, but it's what I tend to use. For support, I generally buy a few more machine guns, a few more bazookas or schrecks, one 75 or 81mm arty battery, then some SPs and tank destroyers. For some reason, I tend to use them better than regular tanks. That's my $0.02.

Bumpity bump bump, Bumpity bump bump, look at CM2 go...

So it sounds like the M8 IRL is more often encountered providing the source of shells for the 75mm FO - makes sense. I still like the fact that they're proof against 20mm direct fire though - unlike my Priests which always seem to fall prey to the odd halftrack or flak gun. For the same reason, I tend to take the SPW 234/3 when playing Germans instead of the 251/9, because the former can stand up to American .50 cal fire.

I'm a big fan of using M8s, often in combination with Greyhounds (which don't use up your armor points). I've had pretty good success attaching one M8 per platoon of attacking infantry (or at least one per flank or axis of attack), following 100+ meters behind the infantry for local fire support. If the Greyhound is nearby, then you have defense against any pesky 20mm + HTs/ACs which would otherwise take out the M8. A posthumous citation has to go to one particular M8 crew - they stood toe to toe trading shots with a KT, distracting it long enough for a hellcat running full speed to pull up behind the KT and shoot it in the butt. Sadly, the M8 was killed but a few seconds before the hellcat took out the KT...