olandt

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Colonel_Klink: Hrmm, I've never really noticed direct fire having much use. I mean, I've seen several enemy squads have about 5 incoming infantry and tank lines of fire coming at them, and they stand up without getting down or stop firing for about 7 turns. By then, I'd wasted a lot of ammo for just a few units who wouldn't become pinned and let my units get close.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> All depends on the range. Anything over 500m and you're definately wasting ammo. I only fire on infantry with infantry when under 200m, sometimes even less. Depends on the situation.

As I played through the scenarios provided on the CMBO CD, I remarked on something. While the scenarios were nice, I had no roadmap to suggest how I should play through them. They are arranged alphabetically, which basically means at random for purposes of what's inside of them. I would scan through the list, opening something that would peak my interest, and then decide whether or not to play it. Something I would suggest for CMBB would be to arrange the scenarios in a more logical order. Why would it help if they could be ordered differently? First, it might be nice for certain types of scenarios to be grouped. Large Attacks here, small meeting engagements there. More general battles here, "trick" battles there. Second, grouped by date you could more intuitively go through the battles. In essense, PLAY A CAMPAIGN. Not by some complicated (from a design standpoint) method of keeping the same troops and watching them progress, but rather by playing a series of scenarios that bring you through the entire war. Having scenarios arranged by date would help facilitate this. Even without a different sort criteria, I believe BTS should provide a roadmap of scenarios to go through in the Manual. ie. "For those player who wish a historical tour, play these scenarios in order..." With creative naming, they could even have them arranged properly in the scenario list. eg. Include the following scenarios... 1)Warsaw 2)Opening of Barbarosa 3)Push to Moscow ... 14-25)Several Leningrad, Moscow, and Stalingrad ... the long retreat 30)Berlin Provide 20 or 30 of the right scenarios, tell the player the order in which they should be played (maybe as simple as numbering them like above) and do their best to provide connectiviety between battles through the scenario descriptions. If done correctly, this would even serve to help educate someone new to WWII in how the overall flow of the East Front. Set it up like a teaching tool. Heck, I'ld be happy to help out (Shameless attempt to become a beta-tester).

2 quick things. First Steve recently stated that all forces will be able to use artillery on turn 1 with no delay. Combine that with long delays for Soviet artillery otherwise and you have your prep bombardment. I believe BTS will also be lengthening the number of turns you can play in an operation. As for the mine rollers, I seem to remember a thread not too long ago which debated their presence. I'm no grog so ... Besides, BTS would have to add more code for that and who knows whether it's an easy hack or not. I would definately hope to see it after the engine rewrite.

Definition of a QB Meeting engagment: 2 forces of equal point value situated at close range with a VL between them. Anything more is what you personally put on top of it. If you wish to believe your forces just got there, buy transport. If not, fire away. The ME is there to allow QUICKLY CONSTRUCTED BATTLES. If you want to be picky about setup, play a scenario. I don't think BTS will wish to model evey possible type of battle for a QB. As someone else pointed out, it would be nice in a future version to allow map size be selected in the startup. I think number of VLs would also be nice.

yowzas! ALOT to read when safer computing can be summed up much easier. BUY A MAC! There seems to be a lot fewer viruses made for the mac. On second thought, don't everyone buy mac cause then people would start writing more viruses for them... :eek:

David, You are presuming that the units involved have just arrived to the board. Not neccesarily a bad presumption, but it excludes other possibilites such as the enemy secretly moving guns into position during the night. You lost significant assets to a hidden gun emplacement. You are not the first, and it happened a whole lot in the war. In a real battle, you could not safely assume that the enemy had NOT put guns there. So to assume so because you are running an artifical ME may not be a good assumption. I would say your arguement is correct if you assume the opposing forces JUST moved onto the battlefield. But that is something that is probably better discussed beforehand, and is usually a restriction better saved for scenarios. A QB is a rough abstraction that was designed to allow endless battles between players. Players were not intended to read too far into the phrase "Meeting Engagment" for a QB. Gameyness pops up anytime players are thinking too much about GAME asspects, and not real life fighting strategies. If you think like a military commander and not a player, you're not likely to run into gamey problems. A side point on Flak guns. Constant use of Flak guns by a player would probably be considered gamey, but occasionally the allies will have the misfortune of running into a German Battllion's Flak battery of 20mm. One could make the arguement that it is unrealistic to find the 20mm ALONE, and not part of the battery. More than 6 20mms, would be most unlikely.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Captain Wacky: using bailed out vehicle crews to hold victory locations and scout for the enemy <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Personally, I would disagree that using crews to "HOLD" VLs is gamey. I think of it more like, "You guys sit here and come running if the enemy shows themselves. The idea of having units on the VL is to make sure the enemy isn't there. I'm constantly using degraded units to hold VLs that my main force has moved beyond. If the enemy does find the VL, well, they'll have an easy time of occupying it. VLs are an abstraction.

Why would not buying a transport for a gun be gamey? So the truck dropped it off, and went back to pick up more. Buying an unrealistic selection of troops is gamey, but picking up a couple of extra support guns and putting them in a good static position is NOT gamey. A perfectly even ME battle is not exactly a historically common event in itself, so if you can imagine a situations where those guns might be located the way they were, you're on as solid ground as any. By the way, asking a questions like this puts you in danger of starting something awfull like a SMG thread. I'm going to run away know before that happens.

or, you can use roadblocks. If elevations is a problem, lower the terrain like previously mentioned. Just be sure to lock the roadblocks if you don't want them moved.

I'm not quite clear on what your are talking about. :confused:

If you are creating your own scenario, units can only be swapped from setup zones that are of the same color. For the allies, you can move a unit from one blue zone to another, but not from blue to red. You can create multiple zones of the same color. The other problem you may be having is if the scenario designer LOCKED units in place. I have seen a few scenarios where the designer designated the setup zone, but locked all units in place so there ended up being nothing to move in the zone.

I personaly like the 2inch mortar for it's mobility and generally assign each to a platoon use it to suppress enemy squads. Brit mainline inf really needs any additional firepower it can get. The American 60mm mortar and machine guns are too slow to keep up witj the way I advance my infantry and I will do 2 things with them. Either keep them far back in positions where they can provide support without having to move, or load em up on vehicles. I'm still not happy with my use of them when I have to move them to there objective. Mortars are vulnerable and I have a tendacy to get them killed trying to move them into position. I generally don't assign them to either platoons or groups in themselves, but keep them arround to use for whatever task that needs help and will send them ou singlely or in groups that way.

Full movie playback is not supported by BTS in CMBO. BTS has not stated for certain whether CMBB will support it or not. They would like to, but they are not sure whether it will be possible for CMBB. They have stated it will most likely be included when they rewrite the engine. I am not personally aware of a third party utility, but it could very well exist. (you'll notice the 60th "second" of the minute is quite a LONG second, so I don't know how third party applications would get around it)

Personally, I favor fast moving attacks. I feel it's more important to seize the initiative and put pressure on the enemy. If my enemy is going to give me the objective, then fine, I'll sieze it and keep moving until I elimnate his forces. There is no difference between an ambush at the objective, and an ambush elswere. The trick comes from massing firepower and not troops. You can take the objective with a small number of troops if you are able to support them with a large amount of firepower. If he wishes to waste a lot of his artillery or reveal other assets just to move a squad or platoon of the objective, then let him. The idea is not really to grab the objective quickly, but to quickly grab the terrain that will allow you to control the objective. If the objective is not easily defensible (an open road junction) then don't take it. But if there is a hill that commands all the approaches to the VL, then take that. Sneaking is fine when you have the time as you don't want your enemy to have more information on you than neccessary. However, if your sneaking means your enemy gets to a critical location before you do, then sneaking wasn't worth it. Usually there aren't that many viable routs to a VL. If you can move quickly to deny your enemy those routes, then you've won. Blindly rushing the objective en masse is stupid and will get you slaughtered. Aggresive movements to seize KEY terrain will usually help you win. We all make mistakes of course.

I find that town offer great keyhole opportunities and allows rather quick repositioning to a new keyhole in a relatively safe manner. Just be sure to have infantry in town...

I took the scenario on assaulting the West Wall that comes with the game (don't remeber the name). Played as the Germans and achieved total victory without giving a sinlge order. (Germans are on the defensive of course). What a general I would make...

Or try thinking of it this way. When your HQ or squad gets the "!", it just lost it's leader.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Babra: Horses. Even though I completely agree with BTS' reasoning for not including them, I am still a bit disappointed. On the other hand, I wouldn't like shooting at horses, even virtual ones, so the surest way to beat me would be to buy lots of 'em <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You don't mind shooting virtual soldiers, but you do mind shooting virtual horses? I am disappointed but the lack of calvary as well. That kind of infantry mobility through most terrain would have added to the game.

First off, on another thread this was from steve on prep bombardment (I just bumped that thread as well, called "Pre-game bombardment") From Steve: CMBB now allows for a Turn One bombardment without any delay. This is primarily to simulate the rather inflexible Soviet artillery system of firecontrol, but it works for all nations. Basically, before the battle started the Soviets predetermined where they were going to fire, let loose, and then assaulted. Mortars were used during the battle and, to a lesser degree, timed preplanned artillery strikes in areas not actually being assaulted (like rear road crossings and such). In general, Soviet FO delays will be so bad that this will be the only viable means of using artillery. The player CAN opt to call down artillery during the battle, but it will much harder to do this because of the lengthy delays. Steve End quote On another topic from this thread; another cause of the German collapse which tends to be overlooked is the inadaquacy of their supply system. Not to say that the germans were not skilled at supply, but that the size of the task was beyond them. Moscow is not exactly next to Berlin, and the Germans relied heavily on horse drawn wagons to get supplies from the railhead to the front.

bump

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sergeant Saunders: I have found one successfull use of Daisy-Chains in CMBO: Place DCM on the road in plain sight. As stated above AFV tend to avoid it. Then I place hidden AT-mines on both sides of the road. The AFVs go around the DCM in road and boom, right into hidden AT-mines! It doesn't work all the time, but very nice when it does. It seems to work best in open grassy areas. And once the hidden mines are discovered, sometimes the AFVs will give a better side angle for the AT-guns when going around area. Will say that so far only 2 hotseat enemies have fallen for this, but the AI is really dumb.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Is this better than simply 2 AT minefields that cover the road and to the side?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: CMBB now allows for a Turn One bombardment without any delay. This is primarily to simulate the rather inflexible Soviet artillery system of firecontrol, but it works for all nations. Basically, before the battle started the Soviets predetermined where they were going to fire, let loose, and then assaulted. Mortars were used during the battle and, to a lesser degree, timed preplanned artillery strikes in areas not actually being assaulted (like rear road crossings and such). In general, Soviet FO delays will be so bad that this will be the only viable means of using artillery. The player CAN opt to call down artillery during the battle, but it will much harder to do this because of the lengthy delays. Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks Steve Just a couple of followup questions then if I'm not to presumtous... First, just to clarify, will Soviet artillery still be bought the same way and have on map FOs to direct the fire? Or is prep atry bought seperately and different from "traditional" arty? Second, will the prep arty be able to shift under the FOs orders? Finally, as we know the soviets loved their arty even more than the Americans, are there significant price differences for the Soviets? Thanks Pete

I've only found them useful on defense. Placed in a town with a supporting squad behind them they cn wreck HAVOC on an attacker. I usally place mine in the second row of buildings and let the attacker enter the first building. Once entered, light it up and watch em run. This has 2 very useful effects, first the obvious damage causing ability. Second, it denies important cover to your enemy increasing the distance his troops have to run for cover on the attack. This will hopefully break up his first attack, then move your forces back and wash rince repeat. On offense, no new ideas. If I have them, I usually have them hitch a ride to the front and have them only attack a properly suupressed strongpoint to wipe em out. Generally, my forces usually move far to fast for them to keep up.

I'm not sure if this was the intention of BTS, but the daisy-chain mine description of pulling the mines across the road at the last minute may go under the "close combat abstraction" of infantry attacking vehicles. Which still doesn't address what CM daisy-chain mines are, but would make the coders life easier to hand wave the surprise AT mine away. At the very least, daisy chain mines should be given a silouette rating, and therefor have a chance of actually being stumbled upon, primarily in low visibility conditions. Either that, or reduce their cost a little.

I think the most interesting game for Vietnam would more closely resemble the old X-com game, based mostly on squads, platoons, and at the VERY most, compnaies. Larger scale engagements weren't seen until later in the war with the TET offensive. That's about the only stage of the war to see combat similar to CM, including plenty of street fighting. As mentioned in a different thread, some of the US arsenal will be a challenge to model. How do you model something like a B52 strike to make a FAIR QB? (Turn 1, horde of VC and NVA comes out of the jungle, US commander radios in air strike. Turn 5, EVERYTHING on the board goes up in smoke and every unit within 1 mile of the strike is panicked, if not routed) Not to mention napalm and a few other goodies as well. I think the game would need to take on a different scope. I would love to see a good vietnam game, but I think CM is better suited to something like the Korean war (which has even less written for it).