Patton_71

I have been shooting up buildings with tanks and guns since this game came out...one of the most common tactical uses for inf guns is to do just that...drop buildings. I have also noted that when a building is about to collapse, an asterisk (*) or two is pun next to the terrain tpye box when you access your unit, and this seems to mean that the structure has been weakened, and may collapse soon. By the way, has anyone else found it annoying to not be able to put guns in a building? With enough time, most inf guns and AT gund up to 75mm were often placed in bulidings to control streets and have cover. Any input on that?

i agree that they had to be used some where...but on another thread...i brought up the fact that i fellow had over 1% of the total production of an entire vehicle run in his game...and it was a consensus that if the 'label' ever applied, it was there. Am i right chad? (18 M8 GMC) Certainly one in a game is fine. but anything more than 2 perhaps would be asking for the 'label'. But on the other hand, anyone who allows an underarmored moblie AA piece to be the game turner, well then he/she deserves it.

so...how do youlike your flamed newbie?...rare? medium well? Like a good stake lad, patience is rewarded.

After checking 3 different sources, the total production of wirblewind and ostwind (37mm version)..less than 200 (one source stated that less than 100 of both types were produced). IE: rarer than hen's teeth...gamey..no doubt...Jagdtigers or elefants anyone?

First off, I do offer an apology to any and all who may think my posts here so far have been a bit ummm..ascerbic. WWII is a topic i hold passionately, and perhaps i get a bit over excitable aobut it. I also understand that a points system is necessary for these games we play. However, i find thingsd much more challenging to get forces not necessaaruily of my own choosing and learn to win with anything. After all, how much fun would it be if you ran the same 1500 point force ad infinitum? Sure, you'd get good at it, but does that make you a good CM commander? Aqua, i completely agree with you on random sets. i have just learned to get a thicker skin when i get saddled with something lass than ideal. For tourneys, ranked games, etc, i would think a list of say a dozen pre generated sets by the person running the tourney for each nationality would be fine. that way you could say that you did 'select' a force that was human generated, buy a human that would (hopefully) would not be too abusive. but, back to the issue, i think it is obvious that the M8 is a great buy for the points, but perhaps the 75mm armed halftracks would better suited...(SDkfz251/9?) these are classified under the vehicle category , and still frees you up to buy stugs hetzers and such. the pak 40 is a great gun, and has a flexibility for both HE and AT fire few can match. Patton_71

Actually chad, one of my souces i checked for production numbers was the chapter H resources for ASL. As to wild bill, you are right, we are playing a wargame..about WWII...If i wanted to play a game about min-maxing my forces to and beyond the brink, id playsomething else. That is kind of why I perfer the random setups. The computer is pretty good aobut achieving a reasonably believable force, while maintaining variety. And besides, i have happily played a game where i faced 2 KT, a Jagd Panther, with nothing heavier than 57mm ATG and my 105 VT arty, backed up with green infantry. I lost, but certainly by a narrower margin than my opponent believed i should have. I guess my issue is the points system itself. After all, we are dealing with someones estimation of the effectivness of the various items we have. Which, being the competitive fellows we are, leads to abuse (this thread being case in point). Name me any commander who was faced with the problem of squeezing the point mix so he can get that second veteran tank. ( "Sorry George, you have already used up your allottment of veteran m4a3(w)75's...could I interest you in something along the m-10 line?") But you are right bill, its a wargame...but it is an absolute shame that such a fine game as CM is being turned into such a poor representation of the reality of WWII combat. sincerely , and respectively yours, Patton_71

Absolutely undeniably gamey... Any moron who runs more than 1 of these things in CM qualifies for this all-too-common label. According to my sources, approximately 1800 M8 GMC were produced. (remember that this vehiocle was more of a favorite in the pacific theatre) The fellow that had 18 deployed in the game represented a full 1% of the entire production run of the vehicle,much more when you consider that no more than 60% or so went to europe. Following the history of the vehicle, the M8 was being replaced in the american formation in favor of the Sherm 105. You would be hard pressed to find an M8 past Nov 44. Personally, I do not purchase a vehicle in a game that i cannot justify as reasonably common. Personally, i enjoy a ramdom setup by the computer. This may sometimes result in a diffocult fight, but no one can at all mention the word 'gamey" in that instance. Patton_71

IMHO, i believe what our friend needs most is a quick help on his alled armor tactics...which means smoke, numbers, and maneuvering to the flank. You can easily get 2 regular sherms to his i panther, and as long as u let your infantry flush out the cat, then you can get the drop on him easier. But purely speaking , the firefly is the only sherm that can RELIABLY take out a Panther from the front. Patton

The problem with these discussions is that we are really debating the accuracy of CM's designers points values of the vehicles, and nothing about their historical value. That being said, in the game, I find the STUG III answers nicely. Good enough firepower for anti-armor, and definitely capable in the infantry support role too. With the price of usually around 100, I think it's a bargain. ( By the way, anyone who uses the 1000 Stuart tactic is nothing but a gamey bastard) Historically speaking, the most effective tank on the western front 44-on has to be the Sherman. Easily(especially when considering the multitude of chassis sub-types) equipping the majority of the western allies armor, it also had the reliability and the ruggedness for all types of terrain. The maintenance nightmare that was the German army could not even cope with the lowly Sherman's stallar record of dependability. ( kind of like a reliable old ford to a porsche that is always in the shop) Patton

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vergeltungswaffe: Ozawa. Weak and indecisive. Had multiple opportunities to decimate US carrier and naval forces in the Solomons in 1942 and failed miserably, thus allowing the pacific campaign to wrap up much faster than it would have.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> :confused: :confused: Really? Ozawa was not in command in the solomons...His first major command was during the Phillippine Sea where he had nothing but boys for fighter pilots, and faulty intelligence about the effect the Guam/Tinian based Japanese air was doing. Considering he escaped the most powerful navy on the planet while only losing 2 carriers is commendable. He fought the battle intelligently, and he was also the only Japanese commander to successfully accomplish his objective in Leyte Gulf. hands down..the worst military commander in WWII was Stalin... If Ol' Adolph gets lumped into this, then Joe has to be the worst. Millions of dead and captured in the opening stages of the war , and the red purge in the 30's castrated the Red Army's leadership. With a proper officer corps, and an army not living in fear of the CinC, Barbarossa could have been stopped by the time it reached Kiev. Instead the bloodiest campaign of man's history was played out by two maniacs. In any case, enjoying the thread, and will read on !!! Patton

I have always held that the "points" values for games like these were always a bit absurd. I mean how many commanders thruout history actually had the luxury of selecting their troops like produce from the market? Not too many. I have played several puter generated quick battles, and while it always isnt a perfect match, it still could be competitive, and i have never felt that the opposing side had absolutely no chance. The core flaw with points systems is that they are inherently subjective, and therefore always available to abuses. I would have no problem taking on any player in a puter generated scenario. even if I would not have a theoretically even chance. I am sure i would have a chance anyway.

YESSSS.. the main thing that has put me off about the online games in CM is the abusive tactics with force selection (the million Stuart tactic) which never even came close to taking place historically duriong the games timeframe. A good generator with the rarity factor included sounds great. why not give each vehicle a rarity facor value as well?... an example of say 10 points per side, with common counting 1pt, uncommon 3pts, rare 5 pts and very rare like 10 points... for a reference point i recommend the chapter H stuff from ASL anyway..will look forward to sdeing this start Patton_71 " Dont let it end this way. Tell them I sadi something!" Poncho Villa on his deathbed

Hey, assuming you want to find other scenarios out there from the gaming community, i suggest many ASL (advance squad leader) scenarios. Especially any from the Kampfgruppe Pieper series ... Just a suggestion. Pat