gredeker

I was thinking about the physics of a tank firing while moving over uneven ground, and had the following idea, which is at least partially supported by Jentz's data (14% accuracy when moving toward the target from 900 to 600 yards, 33% accuracy when moving perpendicular at 650 yards [albeit at higher speed]): Tanks moving at speed may be more accurate when firing perpendicular to their direction of movement. Assuming that the majority of a tank's motion while moving at high speed consists of forward/backward rocking, the greatest motion of the gun would occur when firing in the same direction of motion. Conversely, the angular rotation of the gun would be minimized when firing at a right angle to the direction of vehicle motion, thus (theoretically) minimizing the effect of vehicle motion on firing accuracy. Of course this would depend on the suspension and the relationship between the gun's location and the center of vehicle mass, but (at least in my uninformed mind) the motion affecting the gun would be less than firing forward. Thoughts, comments? [ 07-31-2001: Message edited by: redeker ]

Does anybody have an opinion whether it is better or worse to split squads with a good chunk of your force in this kind of situation? I'm thinking that at each ambush will only wipe out a half-squad, but I'm not sure about the firepower efficacy of the force that follows this route.

The M4A3(76)w+ actually has better hull armor than the Jumbo (111mm @ 47 deg. vs. 92mm @ 47 deg.), but the turret armor is the same as the other Shermans. I've seen the computer use these to good effect because they were clumsily moving in the open... the TacAI for my AT guns must have been aiming for the center of mass, because my rounds kept hitting the hull and bouncing off/breaking up. Two turns later, no more AT guns. Seems like it wouldn't be a good idea for a defender in hull-down positions, though, as the hill/wall is hiding the tough part of your armor! I guess if your tank tactics resemble the AI's then it would be a good buy.

If you know it's going to be a night scenario, load up on squads with short range firepower (admittedly hard to do with the Brits). Your overwatch distances also need to shrink down to next to nothing. Take this all with a shaker full of salt, as I've only won one night scenario.

I seem to recall reading a post by Steve saying that the program doesn't track individual wall states - just the all or nothing difference between "light building**" and an exploding pile of debris. John, I see your point, but I don't think it's modeled - yet. It would make sense for a defender's exposure percentage to rise as the .50 cal fire eats away at the wall, but it isn't modeled yet. Maybe in the CMII engine this will be addressed. Hmm, I wonder if this was one of the reasons that the M16 HT with the quad .50s was left out. There wouldn't be much left of a small building after a few minutes of attention from one.

Sorry deadeye, I'll try to stay on topic. I've got to go with the PIAT, just because of the stealthiness and the lack of self-immolation for the manning crew. I try to only shoot zooks from buildings in desperate situations, but then always seem to end up making the situation even more desperate.

The best tank is the one that is in the right place at the right time. Seriously, I tend toward assault gun & tank destroyer combos (stuh/wespe and hetzer for Germans, priest/m8 hmc and hellcat for americans - haven't played the Brits enough except to know that the croc is lots of fun). In terms of actual tanks, I've got to go with the Panther or the Sherm Jumbo 76, although they're both too expensive for the point values I'm usually playing with (which is why I go with the cheaper combos).

While I can admire the stealthiness of the PIAT, my vote for favorite light anti-tank weapon has to go to the panzerschreck - because it means you're playing with German infantry and support weapons instead of British. And let's not forget the panzerfaust, especially in late war scenarios. It creates a de facto armor exclusion zone around every infantry squad.

IMO, the Marder is great for two things: 1) long range ambush (followed by a speedy retreat) and 2) putting some hurt on infantry at long range in the absence of enemy armor. I'm working on a scenario that replicates a "thrown together" defense on the Cherbourg peninsula, with green occupation troops. It seemed appropriate to have the armor be a Marder III and a couple H39s.

I've been lurking around the edges of this game ever since BTS was affiliated with Avalon Hill (I've played ASL for 7 years now). This game is, in my humble opinion, THE FIX for those of us ASLers who don't have enough time, money, or FTF opponents to participate in our hobby to the fullest. Besides, having the computer keep track of things sure beats having a debate on rout mechanics or motion/non-stopped status... (Those of you who play ASL know what I'm talking about, those of you who don't should realize that the above paragraph only has 1/3 the density of cryptic acronyms contained in an average section of ASL rules). BTW, I've actually created a little scenario that I feel is now upload-worthy. Who-what-when-how info would be appreciated. Thanks, Greg "Big Red" Redeker

Some of us ordered the game, then had to wait for two weeks while more were printed up! :-( Seriously, I think the infusion of new blood (for watering the battlefield?) represents the tremendous word-of-mouth and replay value that the game has.

The episode you're referring to was described in the book "Panzer Commander" by Col. Hans von Luck. After they encamped for the night (often in sight of each other) they would contact each other on the radio to exchange news of prisoners and whatnot. And yes, they called the ritual "Tea time".