Yaba

Playing a great little scenario when all of the sudden a little German shrek pops up and takes a shot at my friendly Sherman. Now, this is no ordinatry Sherman - it is a 105. The 105 has 45 rounds of HE but decides he had better save that stuff for a rainy day an preceeds to his MG at the shrek for a full minute. The shreck gets off 3 shots in total (turns out he is elite) and one penetration of the tank killing/wounding a crew. My question is this. The engagment happend at 80m and this is an obvious threat (IDed shrek) and yet my tank (regular) does not fire his big gun at the shrek. Strange? I think so but maybe someone else has a view on this... Cheers,

I have had a few games on the demo now and one thing I am noticing is that if infantry kills a tank it seems it is not always tallied. I had a tank hunter team first dissable a Stuart and then eventually the Stuart team bailed out. At the end of the game that tank hunter team was credited with the kills but not with the kills of the vehicles. I have noticed this a couple of other times with the math not adding up with regards to tank kills. Is this because the tank was not actually killed, rather its crew were injured enough or just plain paniced inside thier tank and bailed? Just looking for some thoughts...

just a shameless bump to see if anyone else has any insight. cheers,

Yes, I know, my bad. Still, does this mean that the AI does not have any sympathy towards captured troops? Obviously, in my second example, I had no intention of killing the tank killer crew who surrendered on the 5 second of being area target but they were killed anyway. I wonder if this no use of captured troops (and I must admit that I have probably used this tactic 2-3 times in the 100+ times I have played this game) is because troops seem to give up a little easier than CMBO or CMBB? In the Line of Defense scenario I probalby captured 5 - 6 different squads before the end of the game. At my best I would get 2 - 3 squads in CMBB and the only very rarely and only when I had the squads surrounded.

Hi there - both these occured in the Line of Defense scenario so, obviously Spoilers below... Ok - 1) When is a tank shocked yet not shocked? My Tiger is lining up a shot to finish off an immobilzed Sherman when KAPLOW, he is hit in the side of the turret by a bazooka round and is shocked (1 crew member killed). To my shock the Tiger pauses a fraction (maybe 1 second) and fires anyway KOing the Sherman. At the order's phase of the next turn my Tiger still says shocked but I am able to give him orders. This has never happend to me in either CMBO or CMBB - could it be that it was a mere radio operator that was killed? 2) - captured folks get no respect... Ok - two things occured in different games here both on the same scenario. a) My opponent rushes a bazooka team unknowingly towards a building occupied by a squad of my troops. Captured. A building deeper into my territory is under fire and a squad insided is pinned down. Now, call me gamey but I ordered that captured squad to march out in the open towards and into that building within full view of the Yankees on the hill firing. They didn't even miss a beat. They kept firing into that building so for the sake of humanity I eventually pulled my captured bazooka Joe's out of the building, well Joe now that they Allied had killed one of the crew. It was my impression that you were able to fire small arms fire into areas occupied by your troops captured but not big stuff (and yes, the Americans could see thier guys walk right into that building - god knows they could see everything from up on that hill!) This time I am Allied and I am moving my tanks towards town. I see a foxhole within close range appear at the end of my watching phase. I order two of the tanks to area target the foxhole with their main guns (see if anyone is home). Within a few seconds a very rattled tank killer squad crawls out of thier hole and puts their hands up. To my horror my tank crews keep firing for the next 55 seconds killing the tank killer crew! All I could do was watch! Oh, the humanity... I am pretty sure that I have only killed captured squads by accident when they get caught in crossfire between me and my enemy. 3) I know, I didn't say there would be a third but what the hey... Do you still recieve points for capturing a squad if you order them to march of the a) back of the map or side of the map? Or, do you need to hold onto them until the end of the game? Cheers,

Just finished this one today as Axis vs. a friend of mine. We had an interesting go of it with neither side getting the upper hand until my Tiger rolled out of the woods. At one point I had my Tiger right up near the church targeting a Sherman that was out in the open on my far left flank when my opponent crested the hill with a couple of his M10's. Each M10 took one shot at the side of my Tiger, missed, dropped smoke and backed out of there. If they had stayed I am pretty certain that my Tiger would have been killed and I would have lost the battle. As it was my Tiger survived and apart from losing a crew member to Bazooka Joe he was the deciding factor by the end of the battle. I think by the time my opponent had requested a ceasfire the Tiger had caused 28 inf. casualties, KOed 3 shermans and 1 M10. Not bad for an afternoons work. I thought it was a great scenario - right up there with the original ones from the CMBO demo days. The only problem might be the lack of re-play value. Perhaps a wider map that might allow for more defensive and offensive variations might help out. Still - good fun.

I am far from an expert on it but I do believe that a partial penetration can be quite damaging. If you take a look at a cut away picture of a tank you will see that there is very little spare room on the inside. A partial penetraion could still cut the electrical, jam the turret or even crack something in the engine. Just my two bits...

no no, PeterX, I am not trying to make an argument for meeting engagments the way they are portraited in CM to occur in real warfare. I am only pointing towards the CM game options. I too agree that there were probably very few "meeting engagements" in WW2 and far more attack, probes, and assaults. If you were on the side of say the Allies late in the war and came accross a determined defender by chance I would think that the first thing you would do would be to stop, pull back and call HQ for orders. Then, probably call up your arty and plaster the area into next year. But I am getting off topic... I only put those numbers out there for arguments sake within the confines of CM.

I think there is a bit of a problem. I agree that if there is a meeting engagment that there is a chance that air support could get a little spun around in figuring out who is who on the ground. But if a force is attacking or assaulting a known location and has air support you would think that the chances of the air support attacking its own troops would be very slim. For one the attacking force would all be pointing towards the objective. Even a rookie pilot would figure that he should probably not shoot at stuff that is pointed in the direction of the known objective. I am just chucking numbers out here but I would offer that air support has about a 20% chance of attacking its own troops in a meeting engagement but probably less than a 2% chance of attacking its own troops during an attack or an assault (10 times less likely). Other factors like ground conditions (dust from a column of your own tanks motoring towards a known position), type of troops (a large number of your armour attacking a postion that is not expected to offer any tanks on the defence), known postions (like "strafe and bomb the west side of the river"), etc. should all be in play but I imagine are not. Anyhoo - just my two bits

Hi folks, I am wondering if people are noticing any difference in chance to kill percentages. I am finding that I will target an enemy tank (trying not to give any spoilers here) within a group of possilbe targets (all the same tank) but my chance to kill will very quite a bit (more so than I have found in CMBB). I know the differences between the angles of armour and thickness and the way that it relates to the armour piercing penetration tables. It just seems to me that the chances to kill are a little wider apart even when the tanks are all facing in a similar direction. Cheers,

I could be wrong here but think infantry exposure while on a fence or wall is 100% but behind the fence they are covered. I have had infantry and even tanks who are right up against a fence with line of site onto infantry on the other side of a fence (20-30m away from the fence) who when targeting the infantry so the exposure at 0%. [ November 14, 2003, 02:32 PM: Message edited by: Yaba ]

I am not sure what is going on but it is quite possible that you are just a little unlucky with fanaticism. Fanaticism makes for very hard to kill soft targets - not because they are invunerable to fire but because they very rarely get pinned down and never panic or break. This is a very deadly combo for an AT gun. In my experience of playing this game for over 3 years I can say I have never suspected the AI of cheating - being very lucky yes, but never cheating.

Hi Grisha, I guess it depends on how you look at it. The Germans took the city twice. In effect there were 3 battles but it could be called the 2nd battle for Kharkov just as easily (from a German point of view). Cheers,

Hi folks, Here is an operation that is made to play as Axis vs. the AI. If you like it please review it at the scenario depot (or for that matter - even if you didn't like it so I can learn how to make one better). http://www3.telus.net/j_camp/index.html/CMBB/3rd%20Battle%20of%20Kharkov.cmf Here is a synopsis: Background: Near Stalingrad between November 1942 and February 1943 the sixth army was surrounded and capitulated with the loss of nearly 300 000 men, all their guns, vehicles and equipment. This catastrophe for Germany marked the turning point on the Eastern Front, for it left the Russians poised for what could prove to be the annihilation of the entire south wing of the German army. In an attempt to eliminate this threat Hitler turned to his most gifted commander, Field Marshal von Manstein. Von Manstein's counter-attack opened on 22 February with about 350 tanks. Five panzer divisions, in a coordinated movement and enjoying massive air support, struck northward at the advancing Russians' left flank. Manstein worked well with his Luftwaffe commander, Colonel-General Baron von Richthofen, who had provided close air support to blitzkrieg advances from the beginning of the war. While 48th Panzer Corps struck toward Barvenovka, 17the Panzer Division took Izyum and Protoponovka on the River Donets, and the SS Panzer Corps, thrusting through Losovaya, established contact to the north with Army Detachemnt Kempf. The euphoric Russians were taken wholly by surprise.

Thanks! I will give it a shot. Cheers,

Hi folks, Here is an operation meant to play against the AI. 4 battles - 15 min each. Axis vs. AI. http://www3.telus.net/j_camp/index.html/CMBB/3rd%20Battle%20of%20Kharkov.cmf I tried posting this on the scenario depot but the submit button doesn't seem to be working. Cheers,

Originally posted by Bastables: _________________________________________ This idea of British falling behind technologically does not square with the fact that the Churchill was the first to employ Single/multiple radius clutch steering. This is the transmission that made the heavy Panther and Tiger series feasible as a "reliable" combat veh and insured that the British late war mediums, heavies and German heavies actually more manoeuvrable than the Sherman?s and T-34s. The 17pdr was a much better AP weapon than the Soviet 8,5cm and the USA 7,62cm. At the time that the PIIIs had hand cranked turrets the British cruisers had hydraulic powered turrets. The British were also the first to deploy what we know of today as sabot rounds, everyone else used APCR with the higher drop off of velocity at range. It?s a bit like arguing that the USAAF was falling behind technologically by sticking with the 50cal, when everyone else was mounting or developing 2cm cannon even pre-war for fighter combat. USAAF just held a different philosophy of aircraft armament. This does not mean development stagnated in other aircraft design areas. _____________________________________________ Those are good points. I was unaware of that the transmission system that the tigers and panthers would employ was a British design. I was also unaware of the sabot was a British invention. I agree that the 17lb was the best AT weapon that the allies had. However, I still must say that the British tanks were far behind both thier American and Soviet friends. I suggest this based on the lack of longevity for the British tanks after the war. If the British had got it right with the Churhill or Comet then you would think that there would have been a market for the tank such as the Hetzer for Sweeden (?), the Panther for the French, the Sherman for Israel, and the T-34/85 for Eastern European countries and China. Now I am not saying that the Sherman was such a great tank - in fact, the British conversion with the 17 lber was a far superior AT tank. However, the Sherman and it's million variations saw service in many contries for decades after the second world war - no doubt in part to its mass production. The T-34/85 saw service with some armies right up into the 80s. Again - huge numbers but it seems to me it still points towards a good tank. Out on a limb but I would suggest that it was the Soviets who had the best idea of where tank warfare was going first with the IS-2 and eventually with the IS-3 with its poached egg-like turret. The Soviets stuck with that design for many years and it would be the turn of the western armies to catch up for a decade or so after the war. Just my two bits...

I am no grog here but my understanding of why the Britsh stayed away from the sloped armour was due to falling so far behind in the technology of tanks that they never had a chance to really explore "radical" new tank design. The higher uppers were not convinced that sloped armour helped in all cases and in some cases would actually make the situation worse. My guess is that they were so far behind in good armour production that they tried to stick with simple designs that addressed problems as they arose as opposed to trying to be inovative and lead the way forcing others to adapt to their tanks. Reading tank books about British armour one classic line keeps coming up regarding how, "by the time the armour was in the field the main gun was hopelessly out classed and needed to be upgraded". It seems that the British solution was to jam a bigger gun into the existing tank and add more armour on the outside to deal with the new threats as they came (eg. 2 lber - 6 lber - 17 lber) A simple but not necessarily effective way of dealing with things.

I have done something similar to this while playing against the computer. Good fun - in fact it makes for a much different game when you are "down in the trenches" with the troops. I highly recommend playing against the computer this way with the AI attacking or assaulting and you on defence. Remember - don't cheat!

You might want to try "advance". It is a little less effective but not so exhausting on the troops I find. Save the "assault" for situations like the folks have mentioned above. Oh, and don't forget to leave a squad or two behind to give some suppressing fire. Even better if you have a MG or some Mortars for support. Cheers,

Call me stupid - call me dumb - call me a lazy ass for not resarching this more before I post but could someone please tell me the numbers involved in a: company / battalion / division / army? I understand that this will differ greatly from one country to the next but there must be some consistency? I undertand as well that a platoon is made up a a few squads and a company is made up of a few platoons. I even have a vague understanding that a battalion is made up of a few companies - but I am not tottaly sure of this. Is there a specific number of companies that need to be in place in order to qualify for a battalion? After that I get a little sketchy. Also, how does this work for armour, airforce, etc? Cheers to anyone who can shed a little light for this dunderhead...

I think you would probaby find that in the first battle of the operation you were given an option to build fallback foxhole positions. If you don't do this in the first battle (hitting Alt-f or something) then you are not able to do it at all. I figure that your defences are you defences and if you don't dig in the first time around you are not going to have time to dig in when you reinforcements come.

nope. He might not be as nice as he seems...

Hi folks, Well, I have just finished two quick battles on pre-made maps where we each picked our own troops. The first battle I was Russian and bought 2 X IL Sturmoviks GA planes (6x220lb bombs, or 4x110lb bombs, 4 rockets - max 6 straffing runs). I thought it very odd during my battle when my planes came in and did about 9 passes dropping various ordinace with only 1 straffing run. This played a large part in my victory. I put it off to some local bug until my next battle. In this case my opponent took 3 BF 109G - 6/R1 FB's (1x550lb or 4x100lb bombs - 3 max straffing runs). Well, I had the FB's attack me with bombing runs about 8 times with only one occassion of straffing. In this case I still won but it was due more to mines layed then the amount of damage I sustained during the bombing. These are two separte instances where I have the files for people to see if they are so inclined. In fact, people could play the battle out again and count (I could but I am a bit lazy right now). If there is enough of an up-roar I could count the exact number of times I was bombed in the last game as I still have all the files. In short - what it seems to me is happening is that bombing runs are occuring where straffing runs should be. A HUGE advantage to the person who ops for Air Support. Oh, and I am using the latest (final - gulp!) patch. Cheers,

Just a guess: 1) No idea - but I found a cool site while looking! http://www.stalingrad.net/ 2) Kapitän zur See (Captain) Friedrich Carl Topp