Stacheldraht

I've been very disappointed with the way CMAK won't display fog with my Radeon. I loaded up a scenario set in Africa during a supposed standstorm, but it looked like a clear, sunny day. Sort of defeats the point. Odd that BTS blames ATI drivers (lack of fog table emulation) when many other games of mine display fog, mist, etc. just fine with my Radeon, presumably via a different method. These games look great and run like a charm when displaying fog. Why didn't BTS take the time to fix the game so it would run with all features for the many people who have ATI cards? They knew this was an issue long ago. Seems lazy or indifferent of them--hardly adjectives I'd associate with BTS in the past. Sure, it might not have been an easy fix, but excellence--something I often have associated with BTS--is rarely easy. [ December 29, 2003, 03:52 PM: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

If you're interested in WWII (ETO), you should learn it It's a beautiful, fascinating language, either way, one that will serve you very well if you're at all interested in the humanities or European history.

Not just the Germans, from what I've read. For the defense of Moscow, the government sent out thousands of civilians to dig anti-tank ditches like that around the city, iirc.

CMBB is a superb game, no question about it. Its list of strengths is lengthy and impressive. That said, the strategic/operational AI (as opposed to the TacAI, which is a different issue) leaves a whole to be desired, especially on the attack. While it's true that well-designed scenarios can help make up for the AI's inherent weaknesses, try playing the AI on a random QB map, particularly in an ME or with the AI attacking. As the first poster noted, it still tends to just lump all its units together and casually march them towards the biggest/closest flag. It's a little better at defending since there it's mainly just a question of initial unit placement, considering the AI does little if anything with mobile reserves, counterattacks, outflanking, etc. It also tends to be too predictable on the defense, almost always placing AT guns along the back edge of the map in any available clumps of trees. Those can indeed be good positions, but when they become predictable, they're not so good anymore I really hope the AI will be a major focus of improvement in BTS' next game because, as noted above, not everyone likes or has the time for PBEM's or TCP/IP games. Those can be great fun, but they can turn into big hassles too, unless you find really good, honest, and conscientious opponents, which can be easier said than done. Plus, why include AI games if they're not meant to taken as seriously as multiplayer games? They shouldn't just be a teaching tool for newbies, but should be a fun challenge for all players. And that's not to say they're not fun, just that they could definitely stand improvement. (Btw, I've played hundreds of AI games in CMBO/BB, so I'm not just spouting!) [ March 02, 2003, 09:53 AM: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

Consider letting the computer pick forces for both sides, using standard rarity.

Most favorite tank: varies all the time, but I do have an inordinate fondness for anything with a 100mm+ main gun and/or flamethrower. I always get a kick out of demolishing/incinerating buildings and seeing the little troops scurry away ("Rettet euch!") when I assault towns. Least favorite: probably the Pz. IV in general, but mainly just because of bad memories of it from CMBO

"Luchs"

Oh, I'm not complaining about green/conscript troops per se--they offer their own special set of challenges (and, indeed, frustrations!). I'm just wondering why I so frequently get green troops when I select regular on the QB setup screen. I believe I read in the manual that you'll get green troops if that's all there were in that particular region and at that particular time. But by '44, you'd thing there'd be plenty of regular/vet Russian troops. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something?

I had this happen again, playing as the Soviets in a July '44 attack QB, northern region. I selected regular troops, let the computer choose the forces, and received primarily green troops. You'd think regular Soviet troops would have been available then and there. Bumped in the hopes BTS sees this and can comment.

Biltong, thanks for reminding me about the viewer. I installed it and all is good Thanks for your efforts. I'm looking forward to checking the maps out.

Biltong: which document on that site contains the map listing? Thanks.

I was under the impression that historical rarity only played a part in the computer's selection of unit types (e.g., a Panther instead of a King Tiger most of the time), not the experience level of the troops. Either way, you'd think selecting "regular" troops would indeed give you primarily "regular" troops. It makes an enormous difference when you're trying to attack across steppe terrain, for example, with greens/conscripts, as opposed to regulars. Talk about frustration! "No, no, no! Move forward, you yellow !#$%!" [ February 23, 2003, 07:51 AM: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

The link in the first post to the .pdf list is broken. Anywhere else I can get it? (I don't have Excel.)

I've been playing a number of QB's against the AI recently in CMBB US v. 1.2. I've been letting the game pick my forces, and even though I select "regular" troops, 3 or 4 times now I've gotten primarily green troops (with the occasional conscript and regular unit thrown in, as would be expected if I had actually selected "green"). Any ideas what's going on?

Bumped to makes sure BTS sees this.

Re: low ammo: In my case, that wasn't it in the second game, at least. Both sides had plenty left. (I looked at the map after the game ended, and the AI hadn't even brought a number of squads and guns into play yet, so those of course had full ammo. And in the game setup, I gave all squads full ammo to start.)

I know that in the most recent of the two games I played where this happened, my forces' global morale was around 80%, and I had one of the two major flags under my control. My casualties were minimal, maybe 2 or 3 squads worth of men out of a 1200-point force. There were around 7-10 turns left, not including the variable turns ("+") after that.

Since installing the 1.2 US patch, I've played a couple attacks where the game suddenly and unexpectedly ended in a cease-fire, even though there were a number of turns left to go and my side's global morale was fairly high, as were my victory points. (Sorry I don't remember any specific numbers.) I never pressed the cease-fire button in these matches. Did I misunderstand something in the manual about this feature, or is this possibly a bug? It's frustrating to have the match abruptly stop like that. Thanks for any info.

Exactly. One lone MG can bring an enemy advance to a halt, and if you're going to do something about it, you need to bring massive firepower to bear on it, and fast. Just figuring out where the MG is firing from can be very hard when you play with extreme fog of war on. If it turns out that the MG is in a heavy building or a trench, you'll really need to blast the heck out of it to supress it, let alone kill it (except if it's green or conscript, in which case you can call it bad names and make it run home crying). Of course, the problem with trying to bring massive firepower to bear is that it often requires massing your infantry in one location (because of otherwise intervening terrain and/or the limited effective range of small arms). That makes them sitting ducks for artillery. Hence, it comes back to bringing up the armor to gain the local firepower advantage. But, then a smart enemy will have an AT gun hidden nearby do deal with that very eventuality. CMBB is tough

Rookies and "common sense" rarely go together As for StuG's, I'd be among the first to sing their praises, but they're easy to flank if not properly guarded by other AT assets. Depends what type of StuG you're talking about, too. The early short-barreled models aren't too hot. And remember that the Soviets have plenty of other tank types besides just garden-variety T-34's. [ February 17, 2003, 06:08 PM: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

The key to tactics is to make things uneven I'd be hesitant to say any side's armor in CMBB will always win because a good tactician will use terrain, maneuver, supporting infantry, smoke artillery, etc. to shift things to his advantage, to create force multipliers that enhance his units' inherent strengths while downplaying their weaknesses. At the same time, he'll take advantage of an opponent's carelessness, overzealousness, etc. Plus, it seems to me that in relatively realistic CMBB battles, you're never going to encounter an equal number of "even" tanks on each side just sitting in an open field and blasting at each other.

Try an ME with green/conscript troops, or worse, and attack/assault. You have to be incredibly--and tediously--meticulous if you want any chance of success in even moderately open terrain. It's just a constant battle to get your troops moving and not breaking, never mind actually battling the opponent. Fast, dramatic, bold maneuver is generally out of the question, period, in CMBB, from everything I've seen, particularly with so many maps featuring relatively open terrain (steppe, etc.). The real key, imo, is the armor. Winning the armor battle first and foremost has always been the key--or at least a major one--to winning in the CM games, at least in my experience. You need to deprive the enemy of his anti-armor assets (tanks, AT guns, etc.) first, and then use your armor as close infantry support with their DF HE and MG's. Unlike arty, you can bring their firepower to bear directly and relatively quickly and move to new hotspots rapidly. Without the serious direct firepower from armor, forget trying to move your men forward--let alone on some valiant flanking maneuver--if there's even a modicum of enemy resistance, and particularly if your troops are green/conscript. Bounding overwatch, the "advance" command, suppression from nearby friendly MG's and mortars--those are only so effective. You need the tanks to roll up and blast the hell out of the enemy. All in all, CMBB strikes me as being a much more slow moving, management intensive game for those reasons. I love the game overall, but that can kind of wear thin.

Not in my brief experience using them

Rex, the reason I ask is because I played a completely random QB against the AI, and I got stuck defending with all Finnish ski troops who didn't get foxholes and who couldn't hide until I figured out by experimentation that I could give them a sneak order to make them remove their skis, then hide them. I was irked I still won, though, since the AI pretty much sucks outside of the smallest-scale tactical decisions. You know they'll always just bunch their men and vehicles up and head straight for the largest flags or the biggest concentratio of flags.

Thanks, guys! It seems that ski troops can't set up in foxholes when defending against an attack/assault/probe. Is that correct, or did I miss something? Maybe use the fallback foxhole command and move them in those? [ February 15, 2003, 07:55 PM: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]