Splash

Thanx Ted for your e-mail. We're the shy retiring type of players it seems. Inexplicable both sides are on the same radio frequency so we agreed that he swing left and I would swing right. Working like a charm but we forgot to specify whose side to take it from. We're in the bottom of the 2nd. Good thing I'm the calm collected type.

Oooo I feel so newbie! Wish I could change it for years.

Stoffel you mentioned a newbie tourny -- where are these things? Thanx

Perhaps the base should be the value of a QB. That being say 2 of 10. Now I can improve any QB by giving the player -30% so say that is a 4. The problem is that this game cannot produce a 1. The "gamey" factor is another consideration. Gamey at it's 2 poles are: A.) the truly annoying B.) that's annoying I now have to learn something new. Personally I think the scale should be reversed scaled out of 4-- in that 4 is item A.) and 1 is item B.) (Altho' for simplicity sake they might be reversed- but somehow I think "truly annoying" is more satisfactorily expressed by higher digits (even into the millions!)). So that a rating of 9/1 is outstanding. but a 9/4 is descriptive of gamey (re: unsatisfactory) situations. This would eliminate all this decimal stuff which seems an attempt to parse these elements. So you could have 4/2 as the baseline classic good QB. How's that?

Perhaps the base should be the value of a QB. That being say 2 of 10. Now I can improve any QB by giving the player -30% so say that is a 4. The problem is that this game cannot produce a 1. The "gamey" factor is another consideration. Gamey at it's 2 poles are: A.) the truly annoying B.) that's annoying I now have to learn something new. Personally I think the scale should be reversed scaled out of 4-- in that 4 is item A.) and 1 is item B.) (Altho' for simplicity sake they might be reversed- but somehow I think "truly annoying" is more satisfactorily expressed by higher digits (even into the millions!)). So that a rating of 9/1 is outstanding. but a 9/4 is descriptive of gamey (re: unsatisfactory) situations. This would eliminate all this decimal stuff which seems an attempt to parse these elements. So you could have 4/2 as the baseline classic good QB. How's that?

I was wondering if anybody has cracked this nut? It's a bit gamey I find, but a real puzzle. Kind of fun to see the Brit 14" naval gun in action (+2000 blast) but I think I'd rather see 14" gun smoke canisters! That AT bunker is the problem and the confined start area along with arty - as well as... I'll leave it at that to see if anyone has been there yet.

Well as it's important and I can't think of anything maybe some musing might help. Who was the defender? Maybe it is nothing simplier than feet on the ground. I was complaining to Wild Bill about his Maastricht scenario -- basically I dominated the map but I could only pull one flag into question (25 turns seemed too short was my whine). The AI had 54 cs. 14 KIA with 2 tanks left (1 immobile) -- I lost a Stuart and a Greyhound 14 cs 4 KIA - I did not fully control the high ground (AI pillboxes intact but that was because I spent my time working in behind them -- final score 13 me 87 AI. The facts on the ground belied the score but.. What kind of crew -- maybe a mortar crew vs. a tank crew is different.

What I don't understand is the size of the foxhole. If you split how can a full squad fit into a half squad hole? Hmmm a bit philsophical this. Or better yet how can a piece of artillery fit in a 1/2 squad ditch? Or is it that when I'm looking over my troops digging away they are actually building beer coolers and it just looks like they are for people.

Ok I was gonna start a thread on this but here it is. Presently I'm screwing up my courage to begin playing humans but I figure I should get some idea on the bewildering array of configurations. Those Germans had to keep everybody unhappy -- I mean jeez. So I'm looking and I see Volksturm with 4 Shreck. Now I imagine this is for city warfare (an educated guess). But I'm thinking that I'm out in the woods with not a building in sight -- I need 4 shreck and a scouting team -- why wouldn't I buy these guys? Just cheap and I wanna win? As for the Gerbels -- I kept away from them because I thought one leg would be shorter then the other and they couldn't run on level ground but now I read that they are just the thing. So again, I'm laying a trap in deep woods and I want to wipe out anything that moves within 40 metres of me -- why wouldn't I hire these guys? In that kind of scenario it would take a whole company of Brits to roust them. Am I stupid or something? For scouting period why wouldn't I pick the smallest squad groups (7) e.g. Brit gliders split 4 & 3 -- I'm gonna lose them anyways -- why not save points?

Well remember that if you can crunch infantry that means you should be able to run your own over too. Means much more careful plotting -- I don't think it's practicable.

Not that I really expect a reply but I've put a squad in a foxhole behind a wood building (two walls -- I suppose parallel windows being shot thru! I would guess it would beat 11% -- admittedly closed field of fire but it remains a tough nut to crack.

Not that I really expect a reply but I've put a squad in a foxhole behind a wood building (two walls -- I suppose parallel windows being shot thru! I would guess it would beat 11% -- admittedly closed field of fire but it remains a tough nut to crack.

Well I was working through this with A Crack in the Line -- you have those 2 howie's with trucks (sigh -- sooo slow off road!) Often when the scenario is designed the land layout is a clue to what the programmer wants to prevent you from doing. For instance placing a forest at the map edge (just so!) (maybe it helps to have an artistic background) thereby making any vehicles skirt to the exposed outside. You just know it's a trap. But you can drag a gun thru! -- a perfect place to employ a gun -- an instance where it is more protected than a tank. I worked hard to think of that! In the above scenario I dragged that gun right down the map in front of the tanks often!

This Arty thing is touchy. When I've got it i want it better -- when I don't have it i curse the day they employed it!

Nice of you to reply Bill -- just to reassure I find there is always an educational point in your scenarios and I practise them. You're F&M I've practised ad naseum -- I mention it in that this is somewhat similar in the always moving theme. Well actually F&M is at first a snail then a rush. The right side rush is exactly what I did in Masstricht. To me it seemed obvious in that by rushing the right side you follow and are protected by the ridge --my idea was to keep folding my left flank into a forward right (while controlling my side of the ridge) and keep moving and smash heavy. It worked like a dream except for the time - so in that sense it was the wrong way to go. I sent a Stuart down the road on my far left flank to gain that bit of LOS to the middle from that side. I stationed two 76ers (both Reg's, one with 3 tungsten) as my left flank anchor (they had LOS to the AI's right flank flag. I figured they would slow down any flanking from that side. I kept Sgt. Poole on the hill at my back far right flank (covering the middle ridge) -- he got capped by turn 2 - sorry Sarge! Partially my slowness was a caution of arousing the Arty but I was careful to keep control of my side of the ridge so there wasn't any peeking and thus the AI had no clue. Here's my score roughly. I lost the one Stuart on my left flank and a greyhound to the frist gun--at most 20 causalties with 4 KIA. The AI lost all but two tanks, both guns - 54 casualties and maybe 14 KIA. I controlled the entire ridge above the flags with goodly load of arty. But no flags. Final score 13 me and 87 AI. Now if I were to report this scenario back to headquarters -- "They've got nothing left sir and we are fully intact should I take the objectives or move on?" Rather than "Objectives taken sir, we got one tank in working order and one platoon that still feels like fighting. I don't think we're going anywhere, sir." Not being military but certainly assertative I would say "I stand by my decisions sir! They may think those flags are theirs but that's only because of ignorance" Thanx guys -- I'm having fun

I was wondering if someone could help explain what happens in this scenario. I count 4 flags not 2! As the US I can bag the tanks with only a Stuart lost. I can get most of the equipment down my far right flank. But I got no time to get out. The AT pillbox guards the centre flag so I figure in 25 moves why bother -- just leave it. I'm reaching for the end of map right flank flag but it becomes a foot race not a battle. My first play I fake the computer and the tanks came up the Axis right flank --toast they were but I only got 3/4 towards my objective (because of my sneaking around) and I lost. So I try again with no sneaks and only running. This time the Axis tanks crest in the middle - still toast they are in a complete crossfire but I still can't run down that map fast enough. With 2 more turns I could pop that Jagd at the end and line up behind the pillbox for a pop at it but there ain't no time! Rolling up my left flank seems like a fun thing to try but there ain't no time! Help!

One thing I've noticed is that sometimes it's worth putting your men outside the light building (so that there are 2 walls protecting them -- I'm always suprised by the amount of LOS the unit still has and it probably moves the defensive characterics much closer to a heavy building. My favorite is a foxhole in this spot - a tank has to hunt hard to find them.

Also, when in sneak mode you will occasionly hear a whispered QUIET! -- I'm not sure if crack troops ever get that call.

Well I've never played a PBEM and I am very shy about picking my own equipment -- I would gladly take what the AI gives me and then be allowed to modify. To me, purchasing the correct equipment seems the most daunting task.

A good scenario for the practise of hunting tigers with zooks is Elsdorf --- if you flank right with your zooks up to the road running thru the forest (take a platoon or 2 --you have to clear the area) you get to play with up to 5 KT's all at once while hiding in a forest. You can practise hit and run or an end run (save the game and work the scenario different ways -- smoke and then attack is the best)-- I've managed to kill up to 3 by which time the others have no interest in that road anymore --

I've tried firing panzerfaust from inside buildings -- it fires but the squad is an orange pinned instantly -- nobody is ever injured. I've had zooks start the building on fire by firing from inside (to many times). And I've halved a squad of mine by misplacing a gun behind the building they were in. It gained LOS on something and blew into my building. I moved the squad out blasted the building down (from about 1 meter away) and gained my LOS. Ouch!

Flaming building and ground to deny access is a FT's most reliable trait. However I have stuck one way off and alone in deep woods in order to deny a flanking position. it's all you need (to feel secure) in that kind of set up. Either it delays or distracts -- at any rate if they really want the position they will have to commit to it. An FT is also a good backup to a lone zook waiting in ambush.

Well I suppose I should move this over to scenario talk but what I'm speaking of seems to be about what the computer targets (I'm supposing it would target the same in all circumstances. The transportation I'm speaking of has more to do with 'what offers the most protection in particular circumstances'. In the F&M scenario covering that 150 meters in a HT with tank support is less costly to the infantry than dismounting them and having them run with the armour. Obviously the "time of exposure" is paramount and 'preferred targets for the computer' is an issue. It seems here that the computer goes for the tanks first (with all AT assets) and the foxholed infantry goes for the HT's. If you dismount the troops those same infantry go for your troops. Further they open up earlier if your troops are exposed. With everyone protected by armour the defending infantry wait until the zooks have fired off their first round at the tanks. By this point the HT's have arrived (or closely arrived) to their destination. Further if you dismount at this time (to add to your fire power) the upside is minimal and your troops suffer casualties. It seems here that transporting under fire is the only option. Prior my rule was to never do this.

Caution: Scenario busting further on! I've run the scenario a few times allowing the computer a few different set ups. Sometimes it has 3 guns with LOS (altho' it seems to allow at most 2 to open up) sometimes the infantry in ambush has 2 MG's, a squad and a zook, sometimes a platoon and zook. Their artillery has LOS and is just started firing ( a 19 blast or so). Everyone is moving on fast. It takes two turns (around 70 sec) to get all my equipment into the dip. HT's are zipped. I have 5 HT's rushing in the front line (3 squads, PHQ and a mortar and spotter) and 5 tanks coming up behind them - they run 3 abreast hence 4 deep (2 lines HT's/2 lines tanks). On the side I have 2 HT's and 1 tank with LOS on the area but not moving. Invariably because the HT's are faster they hit the location first -- as they are first arriving the tanks are in full view and the enemies guns open up and the zook comes out (he takes a shot at a moving tank (he gets only one - sometimes two). The squads open up on the HT's (I guess to protect the zook). At most I lose 1 piece (occasionally a tank from the gun (but the gun has to be very lucky) but mostly it's a stationary HT from an artillery shell landing on top of it. The force of the assualt appears to be so overwhelming that the defending forces get at most one round off before being completely suppressed. After this stage a funny thing happens. I don't disembark the infantry and their artillery has LOS. So one turn I rush the HT's forward as shells begin to hit their old position. Next turn they go in full reverse as shells begin to hit the position they just left. This can go on for up to 10 turns! If it were a human playing we would have to second guess the others moves but as it is the computer you know first it targets where I am not where I will (or may) go. Very gamey! If you haven't guessed the scenario is Fire and Manuever -- I gave the computer plus 1 experience and 25% more forces -- so those troops in front of me aren't chumps. But the scenario is designed to allow you to mass overwhelming firepower on certain areas If I disembark the troops and run them with the armour they take it heavy.

I was wondering if CM models engine noise. Does it make a difference in the ability of the enemy to identify armour if you race everything at a fast speed? Or, conversly does it help to disguise advancing armour by moving it as opposed to speeding it?