tecumseh

I have previously suspected the AI cheats with arty, because once in a QB ME it dropped a combination of 120mm and 81mm on some woods I was in. I couldn't work out where the spotters/mortars could be so I surrendered straight away and found the spotters on the edge of the map, way out of LOS, 'firing". But it felt like the arty was very accurate. But since no one else has reported anything similar I think it must just have been a fluke.

Jagdpanzers are tough to use. Hetzers are cheaper and do a similar job, IV/70s are more expensive but definately worth it, and Jagdpanthers are even better - with a good rotation and high-velocity gun. All of them are pretty dire against infantry, so keep them protected. I would recommend some vet Jagdpanthers, supported by Ostwinds as your armour fist. Not much the allies can do except run away.

:eek: That sounds like a huge undertaking for one person. I would suggest maybe waiting for CMBB and them modding that (yours could be the first total mod). It would suck if you slaved away on a CMBO mod and got it finished in september and the next day CMBB was released and no one was interested. Good luck either way.

Right thanks, I stand corrected. Now you've just gotta convince the others.

But against a hull down tank, that shot that was aimed at the hull and happened to hit the turret would have been aimed at the turret all along! So the odds of getting a turret hit are higher against a hull down tank, not lower (as redwolf has pointed out) As to real life, yes that makes sense. Sometimes i forget about that rl thing.

Jarmo I don't understand how it can be harder to hit a hull down tank's turret than a non-hull down tank's turret. Surely not?!?

Redwolf, do you think there's a chance that it is 60%/25% vs 30%/25%? (in the same order as your percentages above) In other words, have you convinced yourself in tests that your turret is more likely to be hit when you're hull down? In your example above the difference would be 6% (31 - 25) which is pretty hard to test. I don't know, but to me it seems a tank with an invincible hull would be as protected as a hull down tank, in CMBO (ignoring track hits etc...you know what i mean!). You suggest it would be worse off in the later case because a higher percentage of hits would strike the turret. Anyway, I hope this thread continues. It is not just a waste of time. Well, OK it is. [ July 24, 2002, 09:00 PM: Message edited by: tecumseh ]

What a great sentence Like CM Player suggests, it is a horrible feeling when your expensive german tanks in overwatch with the sloped armour that you were so proud of suddenly gets buttoned and reveals itself to be the slow, ungainly, blind, useless bunch of crap it really is, unable to target the company of infantry assaulting it at 15m, because a bazooka is in the trees 1km away. Make you friend get this feeling! If, on the other hand, he's bought lots of cheap guns and smg squads, get ready for a slow and methodical rolling attack. Your advantage here is that his defence will be static, so you can use the landscape and smoke to attack sections at a time. Good luck

Thanks for that Crap

Thanks for the reply John. Yeah I agree with you, but I'm sure you can see what i'm getting at by buying mines: no matter what happens they cost me no victory points. If your enemy has used nothing but mines, all your infantry and tanks are nothing but potential losses - they've got nothing to shoot at. Your arty becomes worthless, while your opponents arty becomes gold. That's the idea anyway... Say I lose 60 points on the last turn rushing the 3 flags and my opponent loses 10. That means all my arty, mines, hetzers and sharpshooters only have to do 51 points damage for me to win. That is not much killing at all. The problem with this gamey idea is that you NEED to dispute the flags. Otherwise you are relying on killing a certain number of enemy to counteract the points you lose by not contesting the flags. That means you need to take risks...that means you need combined arms...then the whole thing goes back to normal tactics. After reading peoples posts and thinking about it more i think there is no way to dispute the flags reliably with this system. You will be discovered before turn 29, or you will hide so far away that getting to the flags will get your men panicked, no matter how much smoke. So i agree this extreme system is both lame AND flawed [ July 18, 2002, 05:30 PM: Message edited by: tecumseh ]

Good points. Bear in mind I would have trps on the flags waiting for you. I guess what it would come down to would be: a) could I keep my "rush" platoons hidden in range of the flags ready for turn 28 without you spotting and killing them, as you move beyond the flags hunting for me whether i could lay enough smoke to dispute the flags before my men became panicked Both are pretty dubious

Sorry, I should clarify. I am not interested in another debate on gaminess, nor do I need to be warned against playing like this (I never would - like you say, it would be dull). I am interested in why it hypothetically would/wouldn't work and what you'd do to teach someone who played like this a lesson, on the battlefield. Also on arty, lets say its panther-76 rules or something similar, so nothing over 150mm.

I am curious if the following would work: I am playing defence on a map with a fair bit of cover. I spend lots of points on arty (big as I can for the rules being played, plus onboard mortars), trps and mines. Plus a few vet hetzers + ostwind and a few platoons of SMG infantry. The rest on vet sharpshooters. I place the infantry hidden in a position at the back of the map to rush each flag on turn 29, to contest them. I put a split "b" squad on each flag at the start to give me global moral. I keep the hetzers and ostwind together in a safe group and try to get any kills I can, but only at minimal risk, popping up and reversing and using slopes to increase the hetzer armour. I use trps to increase my accuracy of first shots. The armour retreats as the enemy advance. I retreat them off the map if things get risky. I drop all the arty and mortars I can on the approaching infantry. It is risk-free and costs me no victory points. In return his arty is useless. Any kills from mines are a bonus and cost me no victory points. His infantry has nothing to shoot at. Sharpshooters take potshots and retreat, eventually hiding at the back of the map or exiting off the side. They spot for the arty (using trps). I contest the flags, using smoke from onboard mortars to cover the dash. As a result the victory is based on any infantry I lose at the end vs all the kills I get throughout the battle. I win. Would this work? Probably not. Aside from being pretty repulsive, i'm sure there are major flaws I've overlooked. But I wonder what would you do against someone playing like this? [ July 17, 2002, 11:46 PM: Message edited by: tecumseh ]

Didn't stop you beating me in 5 turns, Holien! Admittedly I only had one tank

I used to put my best stealth and combat HQs next to guns as well, to the point where inf platoons were forced to hide in parts of the map I didn't need them, just so their HQ could be near a gun. My feeling now is that even the moral bonus is better spent elsewhere (once the arty starts falling, your gun is in big trouble anyway) - preferably with attacking infantry. That's were it can make a big impact. I have had infantry running over open ground without a moral bonus turn back because they were fired on by a flak CREW! (not a "crew?") Like, 3 pistols. <sigh>

scumsucking double post [ July 09, 2002, 11:29 PM: Message edited by: tecumseh ]

But there is still a line extending from an HQ unit to a nearby spotter, which kind of implies that something is gained (as opposed to two HQ units, where there is no line). This is why I think the moral and stealth bonuses apply to spotters.

Oh yeah, another thing. Combat bonus does not increase the ROF of guns. It's quite simple to test, and I can find no effect on ROF - either area fire or against armour. However the TH FAQs claim this is so. :confused: My feeling is that the combat bonus effects nothing but firepower values. [ July 09, 2002, 11:11 PM: Message edited by: tecumseh ]

It is very hard to work out the effect of the HQ bonuses precisely. But I have previously done some tests on this subject for my own interest, and i have the following opinions: Stealth makes hiding units and sneaking units harder to spot, and makes ambushing units less likely to fire early (the first two would effect spotters). Once a spotter is firing (kneeling, not hiding) the stealth bonus doesn't apply. Stealth does not help firing, running, or moving units. It may help crawling, taking cover and pinned units. The effect of the stealth bonus is greater in heavy cover and at night. It is unnoticable in open terrain in the day. The combat bonus applies to FP. It increases the FP of any infantry or MG. It does not help guns hit armour, or bazookas/piats/shrecks hit armour. I have not idea whether it helps guns targeting infantry, but I doubt it. Redwolf claims it helps onboard mortars hit open-top vehicles. Even if this is so, I am sure it would not effect off-board arty. It may help fausts, I don't know. The moral bonus applies to everything in the HQs command, including guns and infantry AT. It is my favourite bonus. The command bonus increases HQ-effect range and reaction times of infantry and MGs. It does not make the the units more experienced (ie. Regular infantry does not become veteran under +1 command). IMHO it does not effect spotters in any way. A veteran or crack HQ does not make the units under it (eg regular spotter) veteran or crack. HQs of higher experience seem to give you more bonuses. The experience of the HQ does not effect quality of the bonuses though. ie. A +2 combat bonus is the same whether the HQ is crack or green. The time taken to call in an arty strike depend on the spotter's experience, LOS, TRPs, and whether the spotter is moving or kneeling. (and nationality - thanks pak40) I have done tests to support all this, but because of all the variables in CM and the time it takes to do a test comprehensively, I can say my confidence in all of the above is about 25% [ July 09, 2002, 11:31 PM: Message edited by: tecumseh ]

It is good to know that when I use all your great mods Marco I am buying kiwi made Unfortunately I am in Auckland. Is kiwijoe a beta tester? Maybe kj could do something in Auckland...?

I think all the stuff in the manual regarding the stealth bonus is quoted earlier in the thread. I have Manual 1.2. Anyway I tried a few Agua-type tests and - bizarre - I got a different result. I could find no effect on having the stealth bonus when walking and/or running through woods and/or scattered trees. :confused: However I did see that sneaking infantry are harder to spot with a stealth bonus. This came through very clearly in woods. But not in scattered trees (which is my my original sneak test in post 1 failed to pick it up). So - in my opinion - the manual is right. - stealth helps infantry stay targeted to an ambush marker, they are less likely to be distracted. - Hiding units are hard to spot anyway, but a stealth bonus probably makes them even harder to spot. - Units sneaking in heavy cover and at night are hard to spot anyway, but a stealth bonus makes them even harder to spot. In my opinion the stealth bonus has no effect on kneeling, firing, walking, and running units. It does not assist a unit TO SPOT either. As jason says, "for what it's worth"

This was his post Treeburst. I take that to mean he's interested...?

Is this correct, and under what conditions? That is the point of this thread. For example "any unit under a stealth bonus is harder to spot" is wrong. But i thought that for nearly 2 years

You could invite skelley to make it even. He said earlier in the thread he wanted to play and he is definately a "titan"