Monty's Double

Played a QB against the AI last week set to heavy woods. Gave myself infantry and the AI Armour. By some fluke, the woods left only a keyhole 2 tiles wide from the armour to get through. The bottleneck was 100m beyond my setup zone so I moved 2 TH teams with RPG grenades and a flamethrower to the edges of the neck, thinking I might get a couple of tanks before his infantry got me. An antire platoon (5) of Mk IVs and two heavy ACs obligingly blundered through the gap unescorted and were wiped out to the last. The flamthrower got one AC and two tanks. This cut the AI's morale down so badly that his infantry meandered around in the woods without contacting the rest of my defence, so the rest of my forces never got a whiff.

And don't forget to hose those tanks down with sniper or MG fire to get 'em to button up. That drastically reduces their spotting range. In the right circumstances (ie not the Demos) TH teams can be very effective, but don't make them your only option.

I guess some people find it irritating that you can't turn of the quality randomiser feature, but most people seem happy that it adds more than it detracts. HQ bonuses have always been random and I don't remember them being much of an issue. At the end of the day it works equally for both sides, and if you are that worried about units being exactly as picked, play scenarios.

Have to concur on the effectiveness of RPGs. In a QB against the computer I took out a whole platoon of Mk VIs with 3 RPG armed Tank Hunter Squads. Aren't they basically a smallish shaped charge with a ribbon for stabilising? I suppose even if they have a similar warhead to a zook or schreck, a top deck hit is going to sting badly. I wonder what the troops who used them though of them?

What he said. The file is called "Combat Mission BB Prefs". If you get scared about deleting the wrong thing, just moving it somewhere safe should be OK.

Just one thing to add about using Hull Down against accurate shooters like the StuG. Early T-34s have pretty thinly armoured turrets, so Hull Down can be a mixed blessing. You might be cutting the hit chance, but each hit has more chance of getting a kill. That said, shooting and scooting with one or two on the ridge might keep him occupied while you flank.

Bit of a blanket statement if you don't mind me saying so. Is a 1940 model T34 better than a Sherman Jumbo 76 or Firefly? What year is the CMBB version of chance encounter set in? "Vanilla" Shermans get a bad press because they were still being used in 1944/5, but a 75mm armed Sherman is a pretty good match for any version of the Panzer IV, and beats the Panzer III hands down.

The fact that their effectiveness is overrated in CMBB isn't necessarily a "bug" in the way they are modelled in the game, it might be that what made them ineffective in real life was outside the scope of the game. At a guess, I would say that the ammo was difficult to store and transport and that the whole contraption was pretty bulky. Also, CM battles tend to simulate more close infantry/armour actions than actually ocurred. I love using PIATs in CMBO; my grandfather had a different view of them, but then he had to carry one of the buggers. That said, they may be a little cheap in the game.

Most of the best wargames include what I would term a "meta-game", somewhere in the terrain layout/scenario conditions/force selection/set-up area. These often take the form of a little poker game where each player knows some but not all of the info and has to make choices that will affect the main battle. Generally speaking, these meta-games tend to make balanced armies the least risky and very "themed" ones (eg lots of heavy tanks, all infantry) more risky; they either pay off big time or they screw up royally. Now that Steve has addressed the issue of the "bug" (ie an imbalance of info between opponents) I think it's clear that the degree of uncertainty involved in QB's is absolutely a feature. One of the joys of CM is poring over those huge force lists trying to balance all the factors, and the degree of uncertainty over conditions adds to that excitemnt. Schoerner's assumption that because most people like it that way they obviously don't care about ground conditions just doesn't hold up. We understand, we care, and we value that uncertainty because it adds depth to the game. Hmm, I have a suspicion this equine may be deceased...

Sorry guys, I'm lost. Did the Brummbars bog or not then? I'm worried about them, don't leave me in suspense...

Slappy, were you expecting that with HTs in the trees only, they would take longer to be found and destroyed? That would seem to be the common sense theory. I would guess the reason this doesn't happen is down to "Borg spotting". In theory each plane would only be able to share spotting intel in a fairly limited way but in CM it's done "perfectly". I wonder if the plane AI stops searching when it finds a target, that would explain why the HTs in trees survive better when there are vehicles in the open. It does appear to be a slight anomaly, but nothing really "broken".

Burn him, burn his face first. This is a local game for local people, there'll be no trouble here...

Good advice from YD. In CMBO I religiously scouted with infantry before revealing my armour. That was partly because the terrain was usually thicker in CMBO, but also because there was no "armoour arc" command. In CMBB I've found I have to lead more with armour. This is obviously very dangerous against dug in guns but there are ways to minimise the impact, such as using fast units (like T-34's) to rush from cover to cover, or heavily armoured units (StuGs) to "gang-up" in a narrow facing. Advancing with infantry is pretty tough in CMBB, and I can only echo what YD says; use lots of suppressing fire, especilly DF HE.

Don't start the old "were peasants strapped to the side of tanks to deflect shaped charge projectiles or AT rifle rounds?" debate again, we'll be here all day.

Animal mutilation is a crime.

At the risk of being picky, there may be a slight turret rotation issue there. CMBB models carrying troops under COMBAT conditions, so I guess only tanks that could still operate while carrying troops are allowed to carry them in the game. Similarly, that "Guinness Book of World Records most stuff piled onto a light tank" attempt, doesn't seem to include an ammo trailer, so the gun being towed might not be that useful in combat (it would probably hurt if you dropped it out of a second storey window though).

Is vehicle rarity affected?

Originally posted by Ellros: Crikey, rumbled! If anyone's interested, they have set up their own historial miniatures company, now that they aren't designing for Wargames Foundry (resisits the temptation to make comments about what exactly Foundry ARE doing). I'll get the URL and post it to the General Forum if I can be arsed.

They get bemused looks anyway. Only the Bren Carrier is road-legal, sadly. They do re-enactment; WWII, English Civil War, Thirty years War (that's where one lost an arm to a cannon), so it comes in handy. I think the Sturat is a post-war Brazilian-made model, but it's painted in 1944 US colours now of course.

Two guys I work with own a Bren Carrier and a Stuart. That do? Oh yes, and try not to drop anything as we get magically whisked off to the Genral Forum.

It's always the ones who only just sneaked in who are sticklers for protocol isn't it? You'd never catch a sub-3000er throwing his weight about like that. Still, rules is rules. Hob Nob or Bourbon?

I don't think you can Steve. It's definitely worth getting into the habit of creating a bunch of random maps in the editor, then importing them for QB's.

I don't think you can Steve. It's definitely worth getting into the habit of creating a bunch of random maps in the editor, then importing them for QB's.

Dafub, please be aware that member numbers over 10,000 are not permitted the use of irony or sarcasm. Once numbers reach 15,000 you'll be emailed to inform you that this function is now available.

CMBO was the only game I played for nearly 2 years and I couldn't imagine taking it off my hard drive. Although CMBB doesn't have the initial excitement value of CMBO I have to say that I'm a complete convert now. The big thing for me is tank crew morale; it makes armour battles much more satisfying. Although at first the increased realism of morale (infantry and vehicle) can make the learning curve steep, it's far more rewarding in the long run. That and the huge scope of CMBB mean it's unlikely I'll be booting up CMBO for a while. I know there's a more fundamental engine rewrite due, but I for one would buy a version of CMBO with the current improvements alone (including Sturmtigers obviously).