Monty's Double

Get in line buddy! Crusader AA is up first. I want my twin Bofors!

I'm with the slut. Nothing is gamey unitl you have agreed it is. In a recent PBEM game I gently ribbed my opponent about his edgehugging. He replied that it had never ocurred to him that this could be considered gamey, and consenting adults that we are we agreed to carry on, but that next time we'd use a bigger map and shorten the game length to discourage said activity. Both happy, both dummies still firmly in mouth. If you were playing in a tournament you might expect to have some published house rules, but part of the joy of friendly games is finding out what other people find offensive. So, burn away I say, but if your opponent objects, either agree not to do it in future, or play somebody else.

The allocation of rounds to an FO in CMBO is essentially an abstraction, so the "fire all remaining rounds" order wouldn't have made sense in real life. FO's were expressly forbidden to give "fire until I say stop" orders as well. From a coding point of view, I suppose it would be possible to leave orders in place if the FO was offed. Would it make for better gameplay? I'm not sure, FO's are powerful enough and I think the game should reward careful use of high value units. That's just my opinion, you may well disagree.

I heard the Germans, frustrated with their lack of success with the VT fuse, planned a two stage mortar round. The first stage contained several seeds and a supply of Baby Bio. This landed in the earth and quickly grew in a copse of trees. Seconds later the second part of the round, which was filled with contact-fuzed explosive, struck the trees and rained down shrapnel on the hapless allied soldiers. Will this be modelled in CMBB?

What timezone are you in? Jim

Are you using this technique against the AI or humans? In my experience the AI is very reactive, especially with artillery, whereas human opponents are often better at predicting where you'll be a couple of turns hence. When I used to play mainly against the AI I found static defences usually worked fine, but playing more TCP and email games against fleshies has taught me the value of mobility in both attack and defence. Feel free to send me a set up and try out your tactics on me. I have my Peng innoculations and can send a copy of the certifcate if necessary. Jim

You volunteering? Sign me up for a subscription.

That's a coincidence Toad, I'm playing an email Probe at the moment and got an 88mm too. The shame for my opponent is that it was speculative mortar fire that KO'ed his halftrack, and the 88 hasn't even opened up yet! Did you get a bucketload of mines and wire too?

In "Armoured Guardsmen" (by Robert Boscowan I think) the author was tasked, as battalion gunnery officer to work with the AGRA boys to incorporate his Shermans into a pepperpot operation. He and an arty officer lined up a house 8000 yards into Germany and zeroed in a couple of tanks that were then used to calibrate the rest. IIRC the operation was cancelled, but the principle seemed to work fine. What's interesting is that there doesn't seem to have been a strategy for this, it was done at a fairly low level. Does anyone know if the 105mm shermans used by the US were calibrated for indirect fire, or were they primarily for direct support?

Remember that while you guys in the good ol' US of A all have T1 lines the thickness of a baby's arm running into your living rooms, we here in Ye Olde Europe have the IT equivalent of two paper cups joined by a piece of string.

Although I've seen plenty of pictures of HQ/command/FO vehicles from various forces, I'm not sure how often the spotting was actually done from the vehicle. In Blackburn's book (and yes, I'm aware of how some of the forum feel about the accuracy of his account) he gives the impression that the usual trick was to park the carrier with the huge radio a couple of hundred yards away and run a line to his OP, which was usually in a windmill, loft, tree, tall cow etc. I get the impression FO's didn't like drawing attention to themselves (just like in CMBO) and sitting in a hulking great vehicle doesn't help much. The current system isn't entirely comprehensive, but I think it is the best solution, especially in terms of playability.

Last summer I spent a week in Jersey and managed to take in quite a few of the fortifications (my wife is very understanding). I've been working on some fictional scenarios loosely based on assaults on these, but most of them involve assault boats, so I can only test as the attacker vs the AI. Would anybody be interested in helping me playtest them by email? I have games going on with my regular opponents and getting turns back for these is hard enough (I'm talking about you Nedd). If you are, post you address and I'll send you a set up and a briefing. Jim

Tom touched on this, but I think it's worth remembering what type of game we're talking about. CMBO is a computer simulation of a wargame not a boardgame. What's the difference? Boardgames rely on a precise mechanic, and players get pleasure out of pitting their wits against an opponent to see who can best exploit the mechanic. Draughts (OK, chequers if you prefer) is like this; the rules are simple and neat, people play to win, and for the pleasure of trying to outwit an opponent. Wargames have an element of this, but something else as well; they try and recreate an experience. Wargames give you a flavour of what battles in that theatre might be like. Toy soldier tabletop wagames are very limited in the amount of real-life simulation they can achive (noone wants to spend an hour working out every shot), so they use an approximation to give the "feel" of the action. So long as the rules feel right, everyone can enjoy the experience. CMBO is fantastic because the computer can handle far more calculations, so the experience is that much richer. However, because it can literally simulate so many factors, people get fooled into thinking it actually simulates real warfare. It can't becuase on top of all the statistical and calculation issues plus the anecdotal historical evidence, somebody at some point has to interpret the data. What I'm trying to say is this; if you are talking about extra features ask youself whether they would enrich the experience or just add complexity. Going back to the original suggestion, I'd suggest it would do the latter.

Hunt gamey? Absolutely not. As our learned friends have pointed out, Hunt tends to be what less experienced players use, and quite accurately replicates how inexperienced tanks commanders move. Against a more experienced opponent you are likely to get your armour picked off piecemeal using Hunt all the time, though it usually works well enough against the computer. The real secret of using armour properly is how you identify enemy armoured units, isolate them and destroy them with overwhelming odds or careful ambushes. One of the best maxims I've heard on this site is "always assume you will lose a 50:50 encounter". Oh yeah, and once you've sprung an ambush, reverse out and move somewhere else.

Sent a Pershing on a long route behind a Tiger. Ran a zook team and a depleted infantry squad the other way to distract it. Just as the Pershing broke cover the Tiger went boom. Rewound, assuming zook had got a lucky shot, but the infantry team had decided to close assault. Watched the zook round arc gracefully over the turret just as the little brown package arrived. Sweet. Won't talk about the Crack Fallshirmjager (7 men left, OK status, in command) squad who assaulted a knocked out 25pdr crew who'd fled into a building and were KO'd to a man without causing a casualty. Sour.

Actually that is a very profound suggestion. If only all computer games developers released their games when they were finished. How big was that WWII Online patch again?

Answering your own posts is the BB equivalent of masturbation I know, but just in case anybody is interested, all the info you could want on this topic is here: Crusader AA info I for one am sated. Thank you.

Should ground conditions affect mortar accuracy? In the Falklands the soft, peaty soil meant mortars would bury themsleves. I remember reports of Paras firing in support of the Goose Green assault bracing the 81mm mortars with their feet and ending up with broken ankles from the strain. I'd guess prepared defences would suffer a lot less than a mortar which has been hauled forward in support of an attack.

Thanks Slappy, can't sleep huh? Actually I found the reference with the help of a resident grog (not the one who actually owns his own Stuart, surprisingly enough). The vehicle I was looking for was a Crusader III with a twin 20mm turret, designated AA MkII. I've got a pic but no other details (numbers, service details etc), so if anyone has any info I'd still appreciate it. Cheers

Anybody got any info/pictures on British AA tanks? I'm pretty sure their was a Cromwell variant with twin 20mm guns in an enclosed turret but all I can find is a picture of a Crusader with a Bofors unceremoniously glued on top. I know very few if any saw action ("what enemy aircraft?"), but has anyone got any info? And no, I'm not suggesting they should be in CMBO, nor am I going to add to the pile of pleas for M16s/M17s etc. Be nice though (oops).

Duck everyone, red hot fragments of irony!

You are making the schoolboy error of assuming soldiers are always looking where they point their weapons.....

Not sure this is in the scope of the game. In a real battle, prisoners would be herded to the back and interrogated later, so getting any ifo within the scope of a 30 minute game wouldn't be realistic. As briefings between battles in an operation, well that's a different matter....

Well in real life they weren't much use on the attack, so in that sense they are modelled correctly. I've tried some games against the AI using British paras on the attack, and towed guns is all you have. The last game I played I had 2 6 pounders and a 75mm howitzer, all of which started on my backline attached to jeeps (trying to the the historical thing). One 6 pounder was taken out sharpish by arty, but the other took out three halftracks and finished off its ammo on infantry targets, repositioning twice during the game. The 75mm howitzer survived the game also, and managed to fire off its entire load, much to the chagrin of the defending Germans. I used Veteran crews, and although both took casualties during the game, they literally stuck to their guns well. I kept a couple of 3 inch mortars (with HQ spotters) at the back just to help cover them with smoke as they moved. Light guns with high qulity crews can get into action pretty quick. I found that driving up behind trees and disembarking so that the crew push the gun forwards into LOS works quite well, even though it takes a minute or two longer. Against the AI, you can usually tempt it to dump its mortars and arty on your recon screen, but a human opponent wouldn't fall for that as easy. Well, just some thoughts, hope they help.

Michael, if you Alt-A during the movie then reload the autosaved game, it goes back to the previous orders phase. The results of the following movie are calculated afresh, and this can be wildly different. This is more noticable when tanks are in combat, due to the essentially binary nature of tank combat (ie dead or alive). And yes, the temptation to do this when something bad happens in a game against the computer is very high, and we are only human after all....