PiggDogg

Joe, You beat me to the punch by posting regarding this subject. I find turning tracked vehicles to do so exceedingly slowly. I freely admit that have no historical or grog basis in order to make this judgment, but it just seems that this situation is inaccurate and unhistoric. What we need here is a grog expose' on this subject. :eek: I see that JasonC is back after a long absence. Possibly, he is lurking in the shadows of the internet waiting to pounce upon this subject. Also, I have no solution to speeding up track vehicle turning except maybe having the AFVs' crews grease their vehicles' boogie wheels. Cheers, Richard

Gremlin & Guys, When compared to BO, it seems that in BB off board arty arty is substantially less effective. On board mortars, seem about the same in BB & in BO. That means concentrated (all one's on board mortars in one grand battery with a well spotting HQ) onboard mortars (even 50s) are pretty darn effective. :eek: The following are opinions from my observations regarding off board arty for spotted barrages. (I will not comment on unspotted barrages because, except for smoke, unspotted barrages are nearly totally ineffective in BO. I assume that the same applies to BB. In short, unspotted barrages are a total waste of effort.) (1) The time delays in BB are somewhat increased (especially for the Russians) when compared to BO. This has the obvious effect of making it more difficult to hit enemy troop concentrations. (2) In BB, the delay for small targeting adjustments are significantly increased when compared to BO. The effect is the same as in (1). (3) In BB, the arty strike areas seem larger than in BO. This increases the general BB arty ineffectiveness. (4) In BB, small arty (75s, 81s, below 105s, etc.) does surpress a bit like in BO, especially when the enemy infantry is in open terrain. However, it seems that the BB smalls are surprisingly & almost laughibly ineffective in killing troops in cover (trees). In both BB & BO, small arty is a total waste against infantry in buildings. (5) Even BB medium arty (105s, 120s, etc) does not kill like in BO. In BO, a 105/120 barrage would render up to an infantry company in trees pretty much ineffective due to heavy casualties inflicted. BB mediums do not seem to inflict as many casualties upon infantry in tree cover as BO mediums. In BO, mediums are not effective against infantry in buildings. I assume that this applies to BB mediums against infantry in buildings. (6) I can't comment on the efficiency of BB heavies (150s, 152s, etc.) because I have not had the opportunity to use them yet. All I can say is that BO heavies, especially USA 155s because of their short on target time, are most effective against infantry in any terrain. I should be able to comment on BB heavies in the future. (7) In BO, super heavies (8 inch & larger) kill everything, everywhere, at every time if the infantry is foolish enough to remain around. I suspect that the same applies to BB super heavies, but I don't know for sure. The conclusion is that BB arty is less effective than BO arty. Therefore, purchase onboard anti infantry guns. Cheers, Richard

This discussion has been interesting and informative. I shall weigh in. At the time of Kursk, certainly before Kursk, and generally long after Kursk (to nearly the end of the war), the Germans were better than the Russians (and for that matter, the Western Allies: Amis & Brits) on a man for man, tank for tank, plane for plane, company for company, division for division, etc. basis. If anyone asserts differently, may I respectfully state that they are mistaken. Notice that I stated that this was the general, majority of the time situation on the Eastern front. One can certainly find many exceptions to this general state of affairs. Further, things deteriorated for the Germans in the later war times, January through May 1945. I suggest that Zitadelle is the example of how the 1943 Soviets managed to defeat a German offensive whether it is blitzkrieg offensive or not. The Russians applied a massive superiority of men, vehicles, arty, and planes plus great intellegence to grind the Germans to a halt. If the Russians suffered massive and disproportionate casualties in stopping the Germans, it made no difference and so be it. They stopped Zitadelle the only way that they could against a tactically superior foe. They quite masterfully did what they were capable of performing. That was the application of numerically superior force to defeat the Germans. The fact that a corps or two of really good German troops were still advancing when the offensive was called off is of little importance. One knows that these tough German guys were advancing and inflicing disproportionate losses upon the Russians because they were man for man better than the Russians that they faced. Eventually, one must suspect that if these tough Germans guys had continued to advance, they would have also been ground to pulp and defeated by the superior numbers of well employed Russian forces ... probably . In short, in WWII, the superior numbers of well employed Russians and Western Allies defeated the man for man superior Germans. That was the way, the only way, that the Allies could have defeated the Germans. Kursk was a fine example of how, albeit expensively, to be successful and defeat a German offensive (blitzkrieg or not) and the Germans. Cheers, Richard [ January 04, 2003, 09:01 PM: Message edited by: PiggDogg ]

Kryzith, CM is not perfect. However, it is the best wargame out there by far. Further, it is fun. CM is not for everyone, but it is for me. Learn, study, and apply the lessons that you learn. Become a good player if you enjoy the game. Cheers, Richard

At least once a week, someone should bump this thread up to the top. It is far too useful to not have this thread in the newbies' faces. Cheers, Richard

76, As Robert said "bigger boom desired". The 81 (82) mm mortars provided that desired bigger boom. As soon as that was realized and as soon as the bigger mortars became available, the 81/82s were used and applied. Cheers, Richard

Guys, Raising this thread from the dead. It deserves new life and vigor. Generally and most of the time, defending is less hard than attacking. Further, generally and most of the time, defending should win most of the time. & by the way, where is JasonC ??? :confused: He is missed because of his insightfulness. Cheers, Richard

Guys, He who defends everything, or who defends too much, defends nothing. In CM, against a competent attaker, a defender will probably lose if he trys to defend more than a relatively small amount of well chosen ground that is well chosen for cover and concealment, that is important, and and that is point rich. I contend that generally (but not always), competent and successful attackers use a single massive, well scouted attack with flanks (usually flank) properly scouted to prevent or forestall an aggressive defender making an outflanking counter attack. Such an attacker discovers the enemy positions with inexpensive and relatively expendable scouts (usually, half squads) with his main thrust force overwatching. When the defender reveals his positions to stop the scouts, the main force attackers annihilate those revealed defending positions with massive application of gunfire & HE, direct & indirect. In short, this massive thrust can defeat most any defending position that is met. The more dispersed that the defender's forces are placed, the more that the massive thrust meets isolated positions that he crushes in succession. If an aggressive defender attempts to outflank this massive attacking thrust, the attacker's thin observation line in the inactive area(s)/flank alerts the attacker of that threat. This allows the attacker to dispatch a smallish blocking force to "defend" the exposed flank and cause the defender to attack on the now not-so-exposed flank. Indeed, in this area/flank in order to attempt the flanking maneuver, the defender attacks exposing his already outnumbered forces to attacker attrition. If the attacker uses the single massive thrust (which I contend is generally [but not always] the best way to attack in CM), the near only way that the defender can defeat or blunt this massive thrust and for the defender to gain at least a draw is for the defender to defend the well chosen, well covered & concealed, and point rich ground. In short, the defender must be able to meet and defeat any attacking force that it meets. This includes defeating anything less than the attacker's main thrust, a portion of the attacker's massive thrust , or the main thrust itself. This is achieved by the defender's application of overwhelming gunfire and HE against that portion of the attacker's force from the defender's well chosen ground. Just an opinion. Merry Christmas. Cheers, Richard [ December 25, 2002, 12:42 PM: Message edited by: PiggDogg ]

Guys, Scouts for attack or scouts for defense? :confused: On the attack, generally, half squads. They require enough enemy fire to stop them that the enemy will expose something. If sharpshooters or zooks/pzschrecks try this, they might be killed and may not cause any defenders to be seen. On defense, generally, crappie headquarters, sharpshooters, tanks hunters, zooks/pzschrecks, and, if there are not enough of the foregoing, half squads. Of course, this assumes that these guys will pull back before they are fired upon. Cheers, Richard [ December 23, 2002, 01:26 AM: Message edited by: PiggDogg ]

Tigrii, Gee, you & I meet again. Because of their subject content, a large percentage of the general forum messages would probably be better placed in the Trick & Tips forum. :eek: Those miscreatants should be flogged within an inch of their lives. Cheers, Richard

Vulture, If I am correct, I think that during the Ardennes offensive, those Germans in Amis uniforms were there to misdirect Aliied road traffic and seize a few important positions (mostly bridges). As collateral benefit to the Germans, because of the fear of Germans in Amis uniforms, the Allies were caused to employ increased security which generally slowed and somewhat balled up the Allied rear area and traffic. Ultimately, the Allies correctly reacted to the German offensive and crushed it by massive application of airpower, AFVs, manpower, and firepower, especially arty and airpower. If the Allies acted correctly (which they did), the German's Ardennes offensive had no chance. Cheers, Richard

Tigrii, Those motorcycle tires puncture too easily, and then the troops would have to abandon those Harleys, er ... BMWs. Also, those side cars fall off too easily, injuring the poor fool in the sidecar. Cheers, Richard

Guys, Got both; playing both. Probably, that is the way that it shall be for quite a while. Cheers, Richard

Para, Darn good. Iron Cross with all the salad to that crew. However, I don't think that anything like that would happen against a competent human. :eek: Indeed, it is some cool. Cheers, Richard

Matt & Guys, In both CMBB & CMBO, I have had the same problem that Peckham has had. I have not solved the problem. However, I get around the problem by never minimizing either game. Further, before I load a new file, I close the game & then open it again. I have an AMDxp2100, Ti4200 w/128 meg, 1 gig PC2700 ram, WinXP Professional, Soyo KT333 Dragon Mobo. If you solve the problem, I would be pleased. I'll keep an eye on this thread. Cheers, Richard

Hunted, With your hypothesis, the destruction of AGC might possibly have been not quite as bad. The war might have lasted a few months longer. If the Germans were unlucky enough to have lasted long enough, until mid August 1945, they would have won the A-Bomb sweepstakes. :eek: :eek: :eek: Thus, it is good that they did not build a million (I'm exaggerating) Hetzers & make the war last longer. Cheers, Richard [ December 19, 2002, 10:21 PM: Message edited by: PiggDogg ]

CMBB & CMBO are not perfect. They are not for everyone. So, Maxkazar, follow the directions and uninstall. However, they are better than anything on the market, and I love both of them. So I am keeping them on the hard drive, and I am continuing to play them ... a lot. :eek: Cheers, Richard [ December 18, 2002, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: PiggDogg ]

Kyuss, Considering my following caveats, get both CMBB & CMBO. They are not perfect (nothing is), but they are the best wargames to ever grace the computer. If you like the games (and BB & BO are not for everyone), you can't spend a smaller amount of money for a greater amount enjoyment. I love both games. I can hardly describe the nearly two year of enjoyment that I have received for the mere $100 that I have spent. Cheers, Richard

Tigrii, Sounds like a quite good use and placement of Nashorns, Marders, and other eggshells with hammers. Probably, similar placement might be useful for regular tanks & TDs. However, one must be careful of all vehicles' substantially increased chances of immobilization in scattered woods. I'll probably try to use such placement in the future. Cheers, Richard

Mike E, You are fully correct regarding real life. However, in early war, CMBB human choose troops QBs, who is going to choose the Russian unter tanks? Few, and they woudld be making a bad decision. In such games, any nearly sane Russian player is going to buy uber tanks (T34s & KVs) and maybe a very few unter tanks for scouting and because of the player's silliness. Why buy something that can easily die when you can buy something that is nearly invulnerable from the front? There is little reason to do so. I, for one, will buy early war Russian uber tanks and let the Germans try to outflank the ubers. Good luck to the German who try to do the flanking maneuvers. Cheers, Richard

Knustler & Everyone, You have expounded the reason that the Russians won: numbers, large numbers of numbers, and more large numbers of numbers. :eek: The Russians (and for that matter, the Western Allies) won by the application of vast numbers of adequate enough AFVs and vast numbers of arty & infantry which overwhelmed the Germans. Anyone who thinks differently is, to be polite, mistaken. That was the way to win World War II. It is slow, costly, and certain, if the will is there to pay the price. The Russians (and the Western Allies) were willing to pay the price. In fact, by far, the Russians paid the heaviest price. Ironically, CMBB shows that in the early Russian front years when the Germans had success, they were, at least AFV wise, outclassed. Subsequently, in the later years, when the Russians had success, they were, at least AFV wise, outclassed. In short, much of the time in CMBB, one side's AFVs cannot (easily) kill the other side's AFVs (at least from the front) Therefore, in typical CMBB QBs (1) where numbers are relatively equal, (2) especially where players choose the best uber tanks de jour, (3) where the terrain is more open than northwest Europe [ouch, those steppes], and (4) if the opposing forces are correctly handled [that is, keep the enemy to one's AFVs' fronts], the Russians should win most early war QBs while the Germans should win most late war QBs. Of course, this will not always happen, but it should happen a majority of the time. Further, there are some small times (possibly mid to late 1942) where the AFVs are in parity with expected equal QBs. In contrast to CMBB, in the one year of CMBO, generally the QBs are more even because the terrain is generally closer than Russia, and the opposing AFVs (at least when the Allies get a good number of 76s & 17 pounders) can kill each other from the front. I may be controverial here, but considering the above, many (and probably most) CMBB QBs will quite unequal. :eek: The solutions to these unequal CMBB QBs might be increased numbers for the AFV disadvantaged side and closer terrain. How much, I don't know. Someone else, come up with some more ideas. Cheers, Richard [ December 08, 2002, 11:32 PM: Message edited by: PiggDogg ]

Vanir, You are quite right. Nippy, I have to respectfully disagree. The IS-2s, SU122s, SU152 are not a good one for one match against the German tanks & TDs of the day. These Ruskie uber AFVs can and will certainly kill most all German AFVs with one shot. Indeed, the German AFVs (even Stgs) can kill the Ruskie uber AVFs with one shot. [watching a Stg going up when hit by a 152 monster round is really cool :eek: .] However, those uber Ruskie AFVs' rates of fire are just too slow for them to be a good one to one (or even a 1.5 to 1) match against the strong German AFVs (cats, supersloped TDs) or even good Stgs. (1) How many times has anyone seen any AFV hit another AFV on the first shot at range (maybe, 400-500 meters)? (2) How many times has anyone seen a 'Russian' AFV hit a German AFV on the first shot at range? Answers: (1) near zero; (2) less than zero (I'm exaggerating a very small bit, but not much ). Don't even begin to ask these just above questions at ranges above 500 meters. The answers are obvious to everyone. Indeed, the German AFVs will have fired at least twice and possibly thrice before those uber Ruskie AFVs get off their second shot. When the German optics and rate of fire are considered, at near even odds, the Ruskies come off a bad second best. In the later war times, if the Germans are smart and lucky, they keep the Ruskies at range and in front of them while hopefully remaining hull down & super sloped. In those times, if the Ruskies are smart, they get a lot of fast T34-85s and a few uber AFVs; they they motor from cover to cover; they close the range; they get on the flanks; use smoke; (these are not in any particular order of use); and they pray a lot. :eek: Just some opinions. Cheers, Richard

Wacky, Do it. Cheers, Richard

Wacky, I'll fax it to you. Cheers, Richard

Guys, Computer Games Magzine, No. 146, January 2003, arrived 12/5/02, gave CMBB 4-1/2 stars of a possible 5. Also, they gave CMBB a Computer Games Editor's Choice award. :eek: :eek: :eek: The bottomline short blurbs were: Upside: Vivid, encyclopedic tactical wargame with immense replay value. Downside: Graphics engine lags behind state of the art, only a modest upgrade over the original game system. My comment, 4-1/2 stars speak for themselves. I suspect more accolades shall follow. Congrats, BFC guys. Cheers, Richard