olandt

The thing I forgot to ass was the use of flashlights. It usually helps to NOT use them except on the darkest of nights (or if you're night blind). The light prevents being able to see well beyond the illuminated area and therefor doesn't allow you to see the "bigger picture". Someone else was asking how long it takes for eyes to adjust. In general, at lest a half hour. Our eyes evolved to adjust to light levels over the time it takes for night to fall, ie rather slowly. So going from a bright room to pretty dark takes at least a half hour to fully change.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doug Beman: It's just my impression that smoke rounds have the same effect (time between impaact and smoke, duration, coverage etc) regardless of arty type. DjB<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You are SOOO wrong. I just tried to use 60mm mortar smoke to block LOS from a pillbox. Didn't last long (the smoke and the moving tank). Whereas the 14inch Naval gun smoke the computer used on me a while ago (very amusing) lasted forever.

Never done combat at night(or during the day for that matter), but capture the flag sure is fun . Of course, you don't play in the woods on a cloudy night. The amazing thing about walking around at night is you'll find the complete spectrum of darkness. A full moon in a field can almost be enough to read by, whereas a heavy pine woods can block just about everything. You guys have gotten me curious as to how far I can see in the dark. I sure as heck wouldn't want to have to figure out whether that dark shape I THOUGHT I just saw move was friend, enemy, an animal or my imagination. Drive you crazy after awhile. I'm guessing you don't fire your weapon if you want to stay alive, unless of course they're right on top of you... [ 08-21-2001: Message edited by: olandt ]

Just to clarify, the question (as Chad points out) is about the main armament and not the role as a leader.

Anyone know if command tanks are being modeled in CMBB? Tried the search but it timed out. I wonder if they would just give a single type, or actually go into all the different subterfuges to mask which tanks were the command tanks (like the fake guns and whatnot). I think they were present at the company level, would that be low enough for CM purposes to include them?

The SMG squad issues have been discussed ad naseum with point totals taken into acount. BTS said they will be addressing the point issues with a rarity factor for CMBB plus a couple of changes, including upmodeling machine guns making the SMG charges less effective. I remeber the other changes offhand but they might be listed in the CM2 FAQ that bumps along on this forum.

Do be sure to check if any of your infantry has been given satchel charges (or if airborne, gannon bombs). These can be given to non-engineer units in scenario setups.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: Well, you exercise your right to free posting, I do exercise mine. I sound pompus, to me you sound ignorant when you dismiss previous discussions. Discussing anything with Tero is a waste of time, so I won't. If you want to know BTS reasoning, you can do a search. If you don't, don't. Your choice. expecting them to come on to repeat what they said a few times for the benefit of people who don't want to use the search function is a waste of their time. I am not the only one who pointed towards the BTS statement, Moon has too. Maybe look at his profile if you don't trust me. He wrote the Handbook for CM, IIRC, so I would take him as a credible source, but then again, I am pompous. My statement about hot air was directed at the two later contributions of tero and whatshisname, who showed amazing reasoning. There is nothing wrong with discussing this, but if the intellectual quality of your arguments is coming down to those two I made fun of, you don't really have a case. Which does not say you won't find something new to the discussion. Maybe you do - it is not my intention to stifle your interesting debates, by all means carry-on debating.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I did do the search and found over 200 threads in which Steve uses LOS in his replys. I found this single reply in a thread from November of 99. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Hi Ian, Keep in mind that each turn is only 60 seconds. If your guys crawl to a space and are 10m too far into the woods to see out, then another 30-40 seconds to crawl into position is reasonable and realistic. For example, a tank commander is not going to know the *exact* position where it can fire at a particular location from 200m away, or even 50m away. Precision is something that takes time. This is something that other wargames simulate poorly, mostly because they aren't using a realistic LOS model for starters. Being able to pan around and use the LOS tool already gives you way more information than your unit should realistically have, so a partial turn penalty to scoot a unit to the exact spot where it can get the perfect shot is probably too kind. Also, you can see roughly where you need to be by checking out where the LOS line breaks up. Note the different colors the line has depending on the degree of blockage. This can help you out a whole lot. Steve <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Steve comments was in relation to using LOS from any spot on the board, not just from units. Quite frankly, I don't want to do a search and sift through 200 threads every time an interesting conversation comes up. And I also don't expect any BTS employee to respond to anything we say or ask on the forum, I'm not looking for them to. If I did, I would send a letter directly to them. Germanboy, I've read plenty of your posts on many threads, and I don't think you're pompus. But I do think you did come off SOUNDING pompus. Yes it's important to know what has been said before, but I don't have the time to read through the number of posts provided even by the search engine. Steve has posted over 6000 times. I actually think some of the things mentioned by Terro sounded good. I've had no previous interactions with him, so I have no bias against him, and even if I did, I shouldn't let it get in the way of determining whether he has a valid point or not. I don't think any of us wish to have a tool that gives us exact knowledge of the battlefield. That would be unrealistic. What we do want is a fair trade off on capabilities so that our troops can be made to react in a somewhat realistic manner. Whether that involves better AI or allowing us greater LOS tools, or deciding we have already reached that compromise. Pete

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: I strongly suggest a search with Steve's member number and the key-word LOS or somefink. All the hot air expended in this thread on the matter will then be shown to be superfluous. In the meantime, it is vaguely amusing to see arguments along the line of 'it was in another game and nobody complained' or 'we have one unrealistic feature, so what is the problem with another one'. Bring on the rocket tanks. They are in another game and nobody complained (hey, if you don't like them, don't use them) and since we have unrealistic absolute spotting, what does it matter if the Germans have rocket tanks? Yeah, go rocket tanks! You people are funny.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> First off, you come off sounding pompous when you come in and say "This has been dicussed before, don't waste your time". Well, there are obviously plenty of people who have not discussed it before. If you don't want to discuss it, go read another thread. Being part of an active discussion can often be more beneficial than simply reading the results of somebody elses, and who's to say we won't come upon something new? I'm not saying we would, be your coments imply that we won't, which is insulting. Secondly, arguements concerning unrealistic features are a valid line of reasoning. This is a game, and therefor inherently flawed because it's a game. What we are talking about is a trade-off of unrelaistic features. Some obviously feel that an LOS arc is a reasonable trade-off. Saves time, gives more information than maybe it should. But all that information can already be gained by using the LOS tool. So by having the current system, you reward players who spend the most time checking every LOS possible. Well, some of us would like to spend more time thinking about tactics than moving our cursors around the screen, especially on setup where troops would normally have plenty of time to check their LOS. One possible solution would be to do a better job of matching the visual representation with the underlying modeled one where all the computations are done. Obviously this would require a rewrite. Do I expect BTS to do it? No, they'll do what they want, but maybe that just might find something interesting may come out of a tread that has "been talked about before".

Sounds similar to later ideas (70s and 80s) of trying to attach explosives to dolphins and teaching them to ram enemy boats.

I would definately love a full circle los for setup. During combat, I see some merit in the idea of needing to use the current LOS tool to mimick human errors. However, I would support the idea of LOS from one location to any other. The frustrating part of this game is units not being able to think for themselves during the 60 seconds, and act accordingly. I'll give you an example of a game I'm currently using (not sour grapes, I'm getting beaten fair and square). The opponent has 75mm pillbox at the back of the map with amazingly good field of vision of the battlefield. It's far back enough that trying to duel it would be suicide. Therefor, I'm trying to stay out of its sight. It's a pillbox, something big and not movable. I know about it for several turns before I make the following move, plenty of time for someone to let all my tankers know of its location. I decide to move one of my tanks up a pass, that from my visual scanning of the battlefield, should be COMPLETELY blocked from LOS to the pillbox by a 2 story building. If the tank knew the pillbox was there, I think a tank commander would do his utmost to be cautious about showing himself. However, since the turn is 60 seconds, the blasted tank (on hunt orders) turns out to be in full sight of the pillbox, and decides to exchange fire with it (this is a sherman 105 by the way, range is close to 800m) promptly getting killed. Didn't even try to smoke and back off, which would have been the smart thing to do. This is because the roof of that 2 story building, doesn't actually exist for purposes of determining actions, it's just there for show, and to give a false sence of security. A LOS tool from any location is needed to help units make logical choices that are too dificult to correct with a 60 second turn. Either that, or units need more flexibility on their own and the AI to back it up.

My post on another thread just reminded me of what is said on surrender in Sun Tzu's "The Art of War." To paraphrase it, the best battle result is a victory where you didn't even have to fight. Your goal is not to eliminate every last enemy, but to convince the enemy that you are superior and to fight you would be folly. This is of course out of the scope of CM, as this game represents even, or near even matchups most of the time and the option to take battle has been already accepted. In addition, the lives of your soldiers have no meaning in CM and the background context of what you are doing is sometimes lost. This all is why I'm still searching for the game that would allow me to fight wars the "Art of War" way, in a satisfactory method. CM is only the best TACTICAL war game, not a strategic war game.

Setting fire to ANYTHING is neither gamey or even new. Sun Tzu has everyone in WWII beat by 2000 years. He has an entire chapter devoted to "Fire Attack" in "The Art of War". Some of it's pretty obvious like; don't set the fire upwind of you position. Unfortunately, much of it is not applicable in an environment where fire does not spread, and the wind is ALWAYS at a dead calm. And therefor it might be gamey if you are taking advantage of the game engine, which some have already suggested. As it doesn't spread, I don't personally see too much harm in it. As for using it at the edge of the map, well I think the map edge itself is more to blame than fire. There are plenty of ways to abuse map edges not using fire.

I think using the random selection says a lot for the ability of a commander. If you're capable of winning with one particular force selection, that's all fine and good. But a truly expert commander will win with anything given to him. Funny thing is, I don't use the random picker myself as I seem to be capable of saddling myself with less than ideal force selections anyway. I'm just finishing up a defence where I picked all infantry (american paras, 1 comp of reg, one vet) where my opponent (we were both unrestricted selections) ended up picking 2 Panthers, 2 stugs, 2 mark IVs, a hummel, and 3 different HTs. My AT assets amounted to 6 zooks, a 75mm pack howitzer, and a 57mm AT gun(which was taken out by a 150mm rocket before it even saw the enemy). Currently I'm winning because of 2 things. First, we're in large hills and heavy forest, defending a town. Ideal ground for infantry and I received a good map that provides good connection between my forces allowing me to defend thinly across the entire map to ambush and then adjust forces as necceassry. Second, I ignored his tanks and concentrated on taking out his suporting infantry. I took out everthing except the 2 panthers (one of which is apparently out of HE) and the HTs, but I shocked 2 of those making them worthless as fire support. He's losing because he spent too much on AT, and I have no vehicles for him to destroy. The M8s are devastating because they're great vs inf, and used in numbers will overwhelm the opponents AFVs. If you're worried about historical accuracy, try one or two platoons of Cromwell IVs. Fast and slightly more survivable than the M8s (no open top) with more machine gun ammo, and they have a turret. Plus you get the added bonus of buying some wasps. Looking back on this, most of what I said here is completely off topic. But I went through the trouble of writing it, so I'm going to post it anyway.

Be careful when surrendering. First off, your attacker may be hurt more than you realize. I recently defended versus an assualt and did surrender because I thought the game was basically over. I was in the process of retreating my troops off the board and asked my opponent if he cared to go on. He said "no, lets play a new scenario." So I surrendered. I knew I had bloodied one of his companies pretty badly, but I thought the other was still in good condition. I was wrong. I had reduced it to about half strength, I just hadn't routed any squads as most of the damage was done by arty and long range fire. It ended up as a Major victory for him, but I think had I stuck it out and did a successful retreat, I might have leesened his win to a tactical victory only (or just maybe even a draw). Retreats were not uncommon on the battlefield, so they should be part of the game as well. Sometimes it pays to stick through it, although sometimes it means many turns of backing units off the field.

One of the things scrolling around a battlefield does allow you is to maintain optimal positions for your troops. In the game, your forces do exactly what you tell them to do, unless moral or enemy actions get in the way (and tank drivers who are too curious for their own good). Which means, without zooming around the map, you can easilt misplace an infantry squad. 2 meters can have a disasterous effect if it effects LOS. Tops of hills and keyhole positions are 2 examples of the type of terrain which a few meters are crucial. Why should the player be able to look? Because when a real life squad where moving into position, the seargent would normally be able to tell where the best spot was rather quickly, and adjust the squads spot. That adjust ment would take a few seconds. In CM, that adjust could take a minute or more depending upon circumstance. A game like CM will never be able to go past a certain amount of realism because the player is controlling too many units. People claim of borg spotting, but borg spotting will only be truly effective for 1 turn. After that, the player will move units around in such a way which would be completely unrealistic. Even though units would not be able to know about the AT gun on that hill, the players will move them with that gun in mine. Ironman only makes it more difficult for a player to keep perspective between units, nothing more really. The only way to escape the borg knowledge transfer would be to have the player command as the commanding officer, and the AI takes care of the rest. (or make a massive multiplayer)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MrSpkr: What about pulling off the mask of the old Lone Ranger?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You really think you could actually be quick enough to pull the mask off????? Man, you'ld have a Z'ed out shirt the minute you even thought about it. And you shouldn't pull on Mighty Mouse's cape. Who cares about some dweeb like superman?

Hi, I was just in a used bookstore in Boston and saw 2 field manuals from 1942. One was for a 37mm AA and the other for the 40mm AA. If you're interested I can find the contact info for the store. Pete

Anyone try to first level the houses and then VT the area. But that would probably be overkill...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ghost Dog: Here´s an intersting story that deals with gun rotation, albeit in an extreme situation. At the Oosterbeek highway in the last days of fighting around Arnhem, a 6-pounder Airborne antitank gun troop arrives, with a somewhat reluctant hero,gunner Len Clarke. "Some South Staffs came running from the station - from the north - and said, "There´s some bloody Tiger tanks coming." I told them not to to be so daft; the Germans should´nt have any Tigers here. Lieutenant Glover said he and I would go out and meet the tanks, but I said, "No. You get a single man." I had only been married six months. But no one else would go with him, so I said I would, provided we emptied the jeep of all equipment, so that nothing would get in our way. But we were too late, because a small tank appeared before we moved. It had come along a track parallel with the main road and put its nose out into the road from the station. I fired - he was about 200 to 250 yards away - and hit it. It moved back out of sight. We were going to move the gun to a new position but had only manhandled it halfway across the road outside Schoonoord Hotel when I saw a tank on the station appearing over the top of a small rise about 200 yards away. I shouted, "Turn the gun, drop the rail and get out of the way." They said I could´nt fire it like that; you were supposed to have the cross-stay in to secure the two arms of the trail. I said we had´nt got time for that. The Number Two stayed to load for me; the others got out of the way. I fired three shots at that tank and hit it at the join of the turret and the hull, and it just stopped. Then another tank came up to pass it, and I hit that as it was passing with another three shots and stopped that. Every time I fired, the gun moved back another fifteen feet because because the spade end of the trail was´nt dug in; we were only on the cobbled street. A captain of the South Staffs had seen all this and he took my name and Lieutenant Glover´s and he said he was going to recommend us for decorations. Lieutenant Glover said that I would be made up to sergeant - a field promtion." From the book; Arnehem 1944 by Martin Middlebrook. ISBN 0-14-014342-4 [ 08-09-2001: Message edited by: Ghost Dog ] [ 08-09-2001: Message edited by: Ghost Dog ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Now that sounds like a great way to model the reverse for the gun...

To ask the allied side of the question, Do you pick American Paratroopers with 3 MGs per platoon, or American Glider platoons that come with the 50 caliber? (and I'm ignoring the difference of 2 extra rifles in the glider squads)

Looking for a 500pt ME at night in thick fog... Unrestricted purchase, but June 44.

2 uses; As a current opponent calls them, insstant foxhole maker (best used with 150mm, anything hit by it is bonus) Prep bombardment. Buy a few of them, and target the same spot. Pretty at the very least. The idea is to target several on the same spot so the random factor is reduced. Try this. Start a 2000pt attack QB versus the computer. Buy as many 210mm rockets as possible. Target the areas of likely enemy setup. Let em rip. Don't expose any other troops (actually, don't buy anything but FOs). After the smoke clears, surrender and check out the results. Pete Not exactly a finnesse weapon...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lars: For a quick fix you could just rename the scenario files. 040844(scenario name) 220845(scenario name) European dates will work best, I think.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Good idea, but I think it works better with yy/mm/dd

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pak40: AT guns placing Ambush markers themselves (not from a leader) are quite limited to the distance that they can place them. I don't understand why BTS modeled AT ambushes this way. AFAIC, AT guns should be able to place ambushes at any distance that they want to. What's the reasoning for allowing a 300m ambush but not a 400m ambush? Doesn't make sense. I'm going to start a thread in the CM forum to address these and other AT ambushing issues.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ambushes are already being modified in CMBB (according to other posts) to have a 2 point fireing arc, which would allow you to control distance and direction. See if it's in the CM2 FAQ.