Cribtop Gamer

So far, I'm really impressed with the features in CMBB - things like move to contact, covered arcs, camo for units in their initial positions, move to hull down, etc., etc. I'm just salivating about the tactical options we'll all have at our command very soon. There's been a lot of pre- and post- demo discussion about how cool these features are. So, now that you've had a chance to fiddle with them for a while, how do YOU use the new commands and/or adjust to the new CMBB tactical realities?

I agree that the shockwave had a "woo-hoo" factor. However, it was a highly unrealistic woo-hoo factor, as it just wouldn't look like that in real life. CMBB looks so much more real than CMBO that I would really not like a return to the shockwave effect. Thus I vote to keep it as is, for whatever my vote's worth!

I was very pleased to get a total victory (94-6) as the Germans on my first try. Reading the terrain so that I only engaged one ATG unit at any one time was the first key. The second key was using the covered arc command as I advanced to: 1) assign sectors to tanks for overwatch and 2) prevent turning to engage broken crap when I knew the real trouble was dead ahead. The Covered arc command is a truly superior addition and I can't wait to develop new tactics with it. In fact, I only lost one PZ III to enemy fire, and that was because I forgot to give it a covered arc that turn. Sigh. I was feeling mighty good since I beat the tutorial as the Sovs 95-5 for another total victory. Then I started Yelnia Stare as the Sovs and got smeared on turn 1. Brought me back down to Earth, but I'll try a new setup and do better!

Tonight's mission. Watch Univ. of Texas game while commencing download of CMBB tutorial. First attempt fails, but UT wins. Morale issues over failed download resolved through copious application of beer. Proceed with second download attempt. Confirm that DL is going well, nap on upstairs couch near computer long after wife has retired. Somehow actually awaken when DL complete. Time is 0203 hours CST. Commence tutorial as Soviets after reading new features list and readme file. Trees... moving in wind. T34's... so beautiful. Screening element moves to contact using... move to contact command. Many new tactical options available. Extreme FOW beyond glory. Sounds of bullets whipping through trees. New muzzle flashes from tanks. Troops yell "hurrah" as they human wave and/or assault. Rounds kick up dust near their feet. Tutorial complete. Total victory for Soviets! Time now 0506 CST. I am builing a shrine to BTS. Mental state beginning to alter as I contemplate the glory of CMBB. My God, it's full of stars... [ September 01, 2002, 06:11 AM: Message edited by: Cribtop Gamer ]

Thanks for the great discussion guys. I am now playing the very interesting scenario Cintheaux-Totalize off of the Depot from the German side. A very different scenario than All or Nothing, true, but I tweaked up my aggressiveness with the FSE and have had excellent results. I know a lot about my enemy's locations, he knows little about my massive reserve (now bearing down on a weak spot after a feint), and although it's only Turn 10, I feel, as Fionn says, that I can almost call it at this point. I think in All or Nothing I let my certainty that there would be ATGs in certain spots keep me from even sending FSE elements into perceived "danger zones." In reality, the ATGs weren't there, and all I did was waste time for fear of getting scouts killed. Hopefully I'm learning more than that mule!

True enough, Fionn, the AI is nothing to sneeze at in the proper circumstances. You are one of the acknowledged experts on movement to contact. Any theories? If you've played All or Nothing, how did you advance to the enemy?

Good point. I should have said "Good Lord, I lost to the AI while not playing at ground view because the scenario was too big!"

Well, actually, I got to the point where the only way to beat the AI would be to allow it to counter-attack and shoot its armor down using the gamey "my tanks in column on a road can all shoot through each other" gambit, so I quit. Still I haven't done anything but smack the AI around for months and months. I was playing "All or Nothing," and frankly I've figured out that this scenario exposed a weakness in my game. As you probably know, All or Nothing involves an advance by a HUGE number of British troops/tanks in rain and wet ground conditions. This forces you to stick to the roads and requires you to take two bridges on the way to the objective. Massive hills and deep valleys are everywhere. What happened was I just didn't get there in time. I lost maybe 10 casualties and two halftracks, murdering every member of two Pioneer platoons and their supporting bunkers and ATGs in the process, but I just took too long. I was sure there would be ATGs in certain commanding positions and I was too cautious. I tend to move to contact with a screen followed by massive firepower and eliminate enemies with said firepower when the screen discovers them. This conserves cohesion at the expense of speed. All or Nothing taught me that sometimes you must be willing to move forward more quickly and be more willing to crack some of your eggs in order to make the omelet. My questions: How to do this? What are your tactics for moving to contact? If you have both "slow" and a "fast" tactics for movement to contact, how do they differ and in what different situations (terrain, enemy, time limits, etc.) do you employ them?

Hey Fionn - do you have a link to your article on movement to contact and/or your sub warfare article? I'd love to read either one. [ June 02, 2002, 02:32 AM: Message edited by: Cribtop Gamer ]

To partially echo what gunnergoz said, I think it's even more complicated than Michael's analysis above. This is because I'm not sure that all units were "green" on day 1 of fighting (or "conscript" on day 1 for Axis static divisions), and then on day 7 were suddenly "regular." What I mean is that I don't think time in combat is the sole factor in rating a unit. For example, the 101st Airborn had seen 0 days of combat before June 6, 1944, but then on D-day plus one, I think, you have the assault on the battery of guns detailed in HBO's Band of Brothers series. Kind of hard to rate Dog and Easy companies in that battle as merely "Regular," IMHO. I think gunnergoz's point is thus well-taken - you have to look at unit training, motivation, leadership (particularly company and battalion leadership), and maybe even other factors such as supply state and (as CMBB plans to) fitness in order to decide what a unit's "quality" is for a given battle. I think the second great point is that quality will vary from squad to squad, and that while CMBO allows this variation in scenarios and ops, it does not do so as well in QBs. Finally, as someone said, we probably all use an ahistorically high percentage of the "good stuff" because it's fun. I bet playing with crappy troops is its own kind of fun, but it's a great way to lose a QB, so we don't see those kinds of games as often. [ March 16, 2002, 01:28 PM: Message edited by: Cribtop Gamer ]

Hey, BTS. I'm planning to order CMBO for my brother for Xmas. We are not going to be spending Xmas together, so I wanted to order a copy and send it to his address. Three questions: 1) Can I do this? I assume I can just put a different address for shipment than my billing address. 2) When should I order to get it to him right around Christmas time? I don't have to hit it on the dot or anything, just want to be close, preferably a few days early. 3) Can I send a simple message with it? Something like "Merry Christmas Greg" is all I'd need. Thanks. [ 12-02-2001: Message edited by: Cribtop Gamer ]</p>

I have to say - there was a list of things I wanted in CMBB. There was another list of things I assumed I wouldn't get in CMBB. There was a last list of things I knew wouldn't be in CMBB but might be in the games using the new engine. Everything from all three lists will be in CMBB per this post. I bow down before BTS!

I'm considering upgrading to Windows XP since I'm eligible for the $99 "cheap" upgrade as a Windows 98 user. Do we anticipate any trouble running CMBO or CMBB in an XP environment? Any trouble with mods? I assume not, but definitely want to check in before I pull the trigger.

I had the exact same problem when using a 'zook to destroy a pillbox 75mm from behind. The *$**& crew boiled out of the pillbox and murdered the bazooka unit in hand to hand combat - gamey bastards. For the next pillbox I got behind, I had two squads escort the 'zook. Result - the crew died in a hail of bullets before they even had a chance to surrender (their arms were raising in surrender when the last man died -I'll have to convene a court of inquiry about that one )

I find that it is best to transport your slow supporting assets, like HMGs and mortars, in this manner. Until the distance traveled gets rather large, you're right, you could have walked there with regular infantry. I guess you need to move farther than the unit could walking in 2-3 turns to make it worth it (since for all practical purposes it takes 2 full turns to load/unload). This "break even" distance is very small for "slow" and "medium" class walkers, but rather longer for "fast" walkers, especially when you factor in the higher risk of casualties inherent in being mounted. However, by walking leg infantry in front of the mounted support elements, you provide security for the mounted guys while keeping the vital support elements with the main advance.

I think that the comments about Doom vs. CM are spot on. It seems to me that the hardcore wargaming culture of kids in the 70's and 80's (well, I was a kid then), with its respect for history and detailed rules, has faded to the background in favor of things like Doom, WWF RAW is WAR, Jerry Springer, etc. Not to slam anyone (since I played Doom a lot too), but gorefests like Doom and WWF seem to me to glorify a sort of cartoonish violence. In this form of "entertainment violence," it's more important to look "bad" and to taunt your enemies, visiting violence on them is just a confirmation of your superior status as set forth in the original posturing (think about the percentage of a WWF show that is consumed by pre-fight talking - same thing with boxing, really). This reminds me of two male rams or walruses sparring for mating rights or the sorts of tribal "warfare" in Hawaii where two groups of armed men would stare at each other for hours making mean and scary faces until one side showed weakness. If neither side showed weakness, they called it off and had a big BBQ (no kidding). If "entertainment violence," which has been dressed up to remove the real suffering but which encourages puffing out your chest and engaging in provacative acts, is your only source of understanding about violence and war; then yes, I think you may be tempted to engage in provocation without a good understanding of the consequences if something actually "goes down." This is the attitude I see in today's "tough guys," and it's disturbing. What rational actor would risk life in prison or lethal injection by killing someone over a traffic incident or pair of shoes? The risk-reward just isn't there, and real violence erupts when posturing gets out of control. CMBO, on the other hand, teaches a professional attitude about war that is respectful of history - including causes of war and sacrifices of the participants. I think that most of us feel awful when we get our men beaten up in CMBO. Last night I was playing the Carentan operation and had a great little attack going on the first town. Everyone was in place and I was waiting for 155s to get the German's heads down before the final assault. For some reason, my arty was delayed, so I made the mistake of waiting until it came. This let the Germans call down mortars on my assembled assault force with ugly results. The 155s finally came, though, and I was so proud of my veteran glider troops who ran out of the mortar barrage and stormed the town anyway. Truly, my thoughts were "thanks guys, for moving on even though your CO got a lot of you killed." At battle's end, the town was mine at the price of 74 casualties, 22 of which were KIA. This was one of my biggest casualty figures ever against the AI, and my gut was in a knot about it. Recently, my wife confronted me about not being outwardly shocked or depressed by the WTC attack. I was thinking and talking about the military and geopolitical implications rather than the human element, while she was having nightmares about being on the planes. I think this effect comes because hardcore wargamers who know history have, in some small way, undergone military training, and view war with the professional detachment necessary to survive when your buddy gets hit. I personally don't feel bad about this - a nation needs warriors to courageously defend it as much as it needs compassionate rescue workers to nurture and heal it. What we don't need are a bunch of yokels who think that war and violence have no consequences, but I feel confident in stating that few if any CMBO players have that attitude. Wow, sorry for the oration guys. [ 09-20-2001: Message edited by: Cribtop Gamer ]

Mark, I recently played this operation vs. AI, and I did the following: I put most of my Stuarts, plus the two 75mm howitzer Stuart variants, behind the central hill (the one to the left of the first hamlet with the roadblock). The howitzer Stuarts were very effective for me throughout. I used the "Tophat-Lowskie" tactic to minimize AFV losses, but really never exposed an AFV to the ATGs, as I was able to ferret out the ATG locations before revealing the tanks. This was probably the key to the battle for me - I really acted like I was recon, trying to determine where the enemy was and avoiding too much direct engagement. Early in the second battle, I discovered that one ATG was in the woods behind and to the right of the single building in the center of the map (Peter's Gasthof, IIRC) by having my jeeps and one infantry platoon recce the area near the Gasthof. I doubt a human player would have taken the shot that the AI ATG did, but once that first ATG was discovered, 81mm mortar fire destroyed it. I poked one of my Stuarts around the nose of the Gasthof at the end of the 2nd battle and it was promptly whacked by the second ATG, the one on the hill to the back/US left flank side of the map. This gave me valuable intel for my third battle setup. FWIW, note that this rearward ATG doesn't seem to have LOS to much of anything in front of the Gasthof - this can be useful to you as I was able to safely use my tanks to support an infantry attack into the woods past the Gasthof from the hill I mentioned without any reply from this gun. In the third battle, I had two Stuarts plus one infantry platoon plus my 81mm spotter set up on the far left. The ATG can't target the Stuarts until they crest the little ridge near the wall on the left. However, the Stuarts were able to help the infantry platoon clear the woods on the left (these woods have a name, but I can't remember it). Once the infantry cleared the woods and crept up to their edge, the rest was pretty easy. I just found a spot to where I could sneak the 81mm FO so that he could see the spot where I knew the ATG was (it had by now disappeared, but I memorized its location). I plastered that area with 81mm and presto, no ATG. I even got a nice bonus because a german platoon took cover in some woods near the ATG and opened up a fire fight with my inf. platoon. I was able to shift the 81mm fire to their woods after the ATG died, and they were also broken. Once the ATGs are gone, HE fire from the 75mm Stuart howitzers pretty much handled everything else (until the last battle, but I won't spoil it for you)

Great stories, YankeeDog and Gpig! Anyone else want to share? And Silvio, I've been wondering about your issue myself. [ 09-18-2001: Message edited by: Cribtop Gamer ]

This thread is designed to gather some anecdotes that maybe we can use to create some new principles or just for jolly recollection of past victories. Once we get past the newbie stage in this great game, we have all come to understand basic concepts (infantry formations; hull down; Tophat-Lowskie; alternating bounds; supporting base of fire, avenues of approach; kill sacks; etc., etc.). When reading many of the excellent tactical primers available online, one common statement is "it depends on the situation and terrain, nothing is set in stone." Thus, my call for anecdotes - describe a situation in which you or your opponent "stretched the rules" a bit and had it work brilliantly. Then discuss 1) what factors you think contributed to this coup and 2) whether you think it was a one-time thing or a tactic that could be re-used in other battles. Who knows, maybe we'll all learn something.

Thanks for the replies. This helps me to at least know what's going on. Also, I modified my profile as requested to allow direct e-mail.

I have read the manual wherein it describes how "front lines (setup zones)" will be readjusted for a new battle. In a recent operation, rather than assaulting an allied held town head on, I worked my way up a dominating hill on the town's flank at night with recon assets, intending to move up tanks and arty spotters at or before dawn to pummel the town. I also intended to move the bulk of my force around the town and plunge on toward the objective. My force was an armored spearhead with attached pzgrdrs., and I considered this a pretty historical grand tactical choice (go around the town). Now, I wasn't expecting a freebie, I expected to gain the hill, hit the town, fight off American counterattacks (or perhaps interdict an American tactical withdrawal), and then move on. However, after my night recon occupied the ground, I was thrown back to the original start line. I was ok with this, rationalizing that it was just a recon. In the next battle, which took place in fog at dawn, I moved 2/3rds of my main force up the hill, catching a few American vehicles and infantry in the flank. At the end of the battle, I had tanks, spotters, and infantry "on the top," and had discovered that the American MLR just in front of the town had indeed been flanked. I greedily hit "ok" after the AAR screen, and found myself... right back at the original start line. How much of the map's frontage must I occupy to move the start line? Are the tactics I pursued impossible? Anyone encountered this? I'm not asking to be allowed to sneak up one edge of the board, that's unrealistic, but what's wrong with letting the front lines extend to the hill in this instance? I really don't want to have to attack on a broad front just to "move the line." Any suggestions, or at least a better understanding of how the game engine "moves the line?"

I once won a Command Decision style-board game at a tournament using tactics similar to those suggested by a poster above. I had crappy morale volksgrenadiers with no armor support until reinforcements arrived (delayed for a random number of turns by Allied airpower). My only useful assets were MGs, a 75mm ATG, 120mm mortars and offmap arty consisting of a 150 battery and 2 105 batteries with limited ammo (keep in mind this was a game where 1 tank figure = 5 tanks and one infantry unit = a platoon, not a squad). US infantry supported by tanks, TDs and arty were trying to force a stream crossing at a bridge. A town was on the German side of the bridge. I placed observation post infantry units in cover on the US side of the river to spot the enemy and garrisoned the "back" of the town. All three of the "front row" of buildings (those closest to the US side) were unoccupied, but were TRPs for off-board arty. The spaces just in front of these buildings were TRPs for the 120mm mortars and were covered by the MGs. Basically, I let the US infantry occupy these buildings and then let them have it with the 150s and 105s. The US players decided to advance out of the barrage and took it hard from 120mm mortar and MG fire. This screwed up the timing of their attack, and they made little progress until german armor arrived to shore up the situation. I would try this same tactic if you are trying to "defend the middle of town." If you can't afford the TRPs, buy a few 150mm infantry guns, but make sure they have "keyhole" LOS to the target buildings, or they'll be history soon after firing. This is a variant of JasonC's "reverse slope defense" using the front row of buildings as the "ridgeline," but only 150mm and heavier indirect fire or direct fire HE seems to be able to negate the cover provided to the attackers by the buildings used as the ridgeline. Hmmm, I may set up a scenario to try this tonight.

I would agree, Babra, that on any map other than large or huge it would not be possible to use SP arty indirect because of the minimum range issue. [ 07-27-2001: Message edited by: Cribtop Gamer ] [ 07-27-2001: Message edited by: Cribtop Gamer ]

Not to hijack this thread, but my question is somewhat related. Specifically, IIRC, self-propelled (SP) artillery (e.g. Wespe, Priest, M7, etc.) was often used in an indirect role. The main reason these guns were mobile was to keep up with armored and motorized forces, not so that they could be employed as direct fire weapons (although they were used in this role to good effect in urban fighting, where indirect fire was notably less effective than direct fire). However, the fact that vehicles in CMBO are not required to be "in command" leaves SP arty unable to be used in an indirect role (i.e. they can't pull the "mortar trick" and use a commander as a spotter), which in turn means that you MUST use SP arty in a direct fire role. In that role, these usually open-topped and thin-skinned vehicles are often destroyed by AT guns, tanks, mortars and off-board arty (although I can't wait to use the nasty fully-armored Russian SP guns in CMBB, as Soviet doctrine wanted these bad boys used in a direct fire role, and they were designed accordingly). All of this means that SP arty, which was highly useful in WW2 is actually less useful in many cases in CMBO than traditional off-board arty. My question is this. Since vehicles will be subject to command and morale rules in CMBB, will they be able to use commanders as spotters a la mortars? If not, would this be a useful feature to consider for CM2 (I know it's too late for changes to CMBB and that's fine)? [ 07-27-2001: Message edited by: Cribtop Gamer ]

Thanks for your replies. I just bought it and I'm not on a Mac, so it seems I'm ready to roll. However, Alt-s does NOT seem to be saving games (I had no problem with Alt-s in the demo version). Has anyone else encountered this problem? I played half a scenario last night but lost it completely - my "saved games" file is empty. Several tests with different scenarios confirm that no save command is "taking." Please help! :confused: