Winterhawk

Thanks much GJK.

The effort is much appreciated Wolfe. Well done. Question. Does anyone know how to enable the top 2 rows to serve as a header that remains visible as you scroll down the page?

Peterk: Not to blow my own horn, but I was actually quite successful at defence in CMBO. Although I must admit that my consistently stopping the infantry was a result of well placed artillery more than anything else. And nothing smaller than 105 mm either or it had little effect. I do in fact remember one memorable battle where I was dug in on a hill. The enemy (company strength) advanced through light pockets of scattered trees. I rained 81 mm mortar shells at them constantly. Not only did it fail to slow them down, but it also caused precious few casualties. I suppose, after a little more reflection, perhaps they were a bit too resilient. PiggDogg: I agree with much of what you said. It only makes sense that when the shooting starts the first thing to do is hit the deck. CMBB infantry do this very well. CMBO infantry do not. It's what happens after that that, for me, the controversy begins. Where CMBO infantry are maybe a little too willing to keep moving, do you not find CMBB infantry a little too reluctant to do so? Hmmm. I think I need to resign myself to a few more games. See just how many and how quickly they cover up. Monitor very closely their mental state, casualty rate and so forth - *grasps head in hands* - oh bother. A major side effect to all of this however, and one already mentioned in this thread, is the ammo issue. It's going to be challenging indeed to keep an entire battalion combat effective over the course of a lengthy battle without having to fix bayonet's.

In your previous post Capt you alluded to a test you performed - 2 MG Pillboxes vs. an Infantry company rushing at them across open terrain. 50% of the CMBO infantry made it across in 3 turns. While you never stated the parameters, it would appear from the fact that it took 3 minutes to get there that they probably had several hundred meters to run. I don't disagree that this is not a very realistic result. CMplayer made an interesting observation when he said: "So just taking that first patch of woods, or silencing that one machine gun is the accomplishment of the game for an infantry platoon." While I completely agree with his statement, I don't agree that this is the fairest testament to reality, if in fact reality is the objective here. With odds like this, a dozen machine guns with a few boxes of ammo each and D-Day would have never happened. Keep in mind that I never said anywhere that the infantry model in CMBO was perfect. But neither have I been convinced that it's any more or less perfect than it is in CMBB. To be honest, I think the balance lies somewhere between the two. A little less bullet-proof than CMBO, and a little more testosterone than CMBB. [ October 12, 2002, 02:33 PM: Message edited by: Winterhawk ]

I've read all of your posts with interest and, I must confess, I was surprised to find little support for my argument. I honestly didn't find the infantry model in CMBO that bad. Now, based on your replies, I've had to take a longer, harder look at them here in CMBB. Have any of you ever played any games from the venerable Close Combat series? Remember how the first two instalments focused on infantry and how effective their role was? Remember the third one, The Russian Front? The infantry was "re-worked", becoming easier to suppress and, subsequently, easier to kill. Players quickly adapted their techniques, not by using their infantry more effectively, but by avoiding them. Battles quickly became nothing more than tank-fests, with the only infantry present being those that carried AT assets. I fear the poor spotting ability of CMBB tankers is the only thing keeping it from suffering the same fate. I hope the reasons for my bringing up this comparison are not lost. My reaction after playing my first few battles in CMBB was that the omnipresent line between what is authentic and what is fun had been crossed. Do the infantry react more realistically now? Maybe. I supposed it depends on ones' point of reference, doesn't it? Everyone in the room that's charged across a field dodging motor shells and machine gun fire please raise your hands? Hmmm, the silence is telling indeed. Is it more fun now? Ahh, now that's the real question, isn't it? In CMBO, did your infantry take casualties, get suppressed, afraid and route? Did they sometimes, despite the fire, press on? Was it fun? Yes, yes and hell yes! I don't know how many times I would follow that little infantry icon with my camera as he charged through the flak to the safety of the tree line, all the while urging him on: "Run you 6-legged sumbich run!" Now, with CMBB, I'm not so sure. I do far more cursing than battle crying (although sometimes I do just plain cry). I move my troops no longer with confidence but with trepidation, genuinely afraid someone will start shooting at them, and this especially so if they're anything less than post '44 veterans. So have I "figured them out" yet? Yes, I should think so. After numerous sessions with furrowed brow I'm consistently doing what it takes to win against both the AI and human opponents. But it's my opinion that the new infantry model has significantly reduced tactical possibilities, and that's a shame. Albeit there will always be variables and exceptions, it's too often now simply a matter of fire superiority. He who brings the most guns wins. In CMBO you wouldn't think twice about breaking off a section of your force, say a platoon, and moving them quickly and quietly towards a flank. Because a platoon was capable, should be capable, of inflicting some damage. Now every time I issue a platoon this assignment the Lt. looks at me with glossy eyes and says, "You want us to go out there? Alone?" So at the end of the day, for me, CMBB has lost something. It's lost its courage. It's lost some flexibility. It's lost some of its unpredictability. Is it more real? Again, maybe. It's my opinion, not my personal experience, that any soldier not willing to pick up his weapon, return fire and move forward while under fire himself has no business being a soldier in the first place. Countless historical engagements and the odd court martial here and there bare this out quite nicely thank you.

Sorry. Lost it there for a minute. That's what happens when you read Peng posts for 2 hours straight.

Fergit the trenches. All I wanna know is which one a you sumbiches is gonna dig some more latrines cause these one's is gettin' mighty full.

I expected that was it, thanks. Although I must admit that I don't have any real difficulty interpreting the undulations in the terrain as it is.

I really don't mean to sound naive, but what are the advantages to having the grid?

I'm not sure if this issue has been raised yet, but is it just me or has the infantry lost something during their march over to CMBB from CMBO? I remember reading somewhere (can't quote the source) that one of the game play tweaks was that infantry was now more readily suppressed. I, for one, never felt there was anything wrong with the way they reacted to enemy fire before. They sat up and fought when you wanted them to, they stood up and charged ahead when you needed them to, and they hit the dirt when you expected them to. Now it seems that they just spend way too much time flat on their faces. I could list examples from just about every game I've played thus far where the infantry responds more like a thorough waste of requisition points than an effective fighting force. And this is really a shame because I LIKE to use the infantry. I will give one quick 'fer instance' though because I noticed a couple of other oddities during a QB/ME against the AI last night. I (as the Germans) had just finished mauling a company of Guards infantry with 105 mm arty as they advanced toward an objective. Once a few units had recovered enough to continue the advance, I took out of hiding my own company of veteran Mountain troops that I'd previously moved into a defensive position in some scattered rough behind the objective. And that's all I did that turn, was take them out of hiding, with of course the reasonable expectation that they would open fire on the advancing Russians - who by the way were all in plain site, in open ground, and anywhere from 125 to 250 m's away. But they didn't do anything. My entire company just sat there and never fired a single round. In a panic during the orders phase on the next turn I assigned them all cover arcs that encompassed the enemy troops. The next action phase saw the field erupt with small arms fire from my company and the Russian troops were ultimately rendered combat ineffective. Why didn't my troops fire on their own without the prompt from the cover arc? At one point I advanced a platoon and noticed their cover arcs advanced with them. They stopped in some scattered trees beside (literally) a panicked, depleted Russian squad, which happened to be just outside the borders of all of my platoon's cover arcs. My units completely ignored him despite the fact that he was only 10 m's away. I was very grateful the Russians didn't sit up and start shooting. I wonder now if my units would have continued to sit there doing nothing if he had. The next turn I removed the cover arcs for that platoon and they immediately engaged and eliminated this obvious, in-your-face threat. Problem? Bug? Intention? And lastly, it would appear that cover arcs could only be issued one unit at a time. This is arduous at best when you want multiple units covering the same area. It would be nice to assign cover arcs to groups, no?

Twenty feet six inches it is.

Interesting stuff. So by doing the math, the barrel on the 88/L70 equipped King Kitty is 6.16 m's long - that's just over 20 feet for you metrically challenged Yanks. Holy crap. That's a big gun. And thanks for the input.

A Panzer IVF has a 75/L24 gun and a IVF2 has a 75/L43 gun. Numerous tanks and field guns make use of a similar numbering convention. I'm aware that the first number references the diameter of the barrel (bore) of the gun in mm. Is the second number a measure of the length of the barrel? If so, how you determine the actual length from, let's say, L43? Neither 43 or 430 (mm's, cm's or m's) make sense. Neither does 4.3 m's. Perhaps it's not a reference to the length?

Never mind...I found them, thanks.

Thanks guys, but uhmm, on this very page where?