Sarge Saunders

True. And they also put a stretch on common sense. The fact that some players observe the exact opposite of what you posted implies that there is more going on here than meets the eye. Michael</font>

Any comments on my screenshots above? They run contrary to much of what has been said. Namely: - FOs with ammo can defend a VL in real life but not control it in CMBB. - Even ammoless tanks and armored cars are controlling VLs despite their being unable to defend it. This runs contrary to everything that has been said so far. Pak40s vehicle must have been a halftrack of somefink. - Ammoless Mortar team controls an objective all alone? This makes no sense. -Sarge

Here is a quick test. None of these results make sense in light of our discussion. But here are the screenshots anyway..... Why can't the FO control the VL?? This empty mortar can't defend a VL but he controls it?? This PSW has no MG and no main gun ammo but controls a flag?? A gun that has no ammo?? A Stug with no ammo and no MG can control a flag. Seems very inconsistent behavior.... -Sarge

Some interesting counter-arguments given. Food for thought.... Now: What about the Artillery/Mortar FO. Why can't they control a VL with the above logic? They can certainly keep enemy units away if used properly.....depending on LOS. BTW, being a pragmatic man I agree most of all with Combined Arms. Thus said, once you know it works a certain way it is easy to find some platoon HQ or half-squad to sit on a VL and control it. -Sarge [ December 07, 2002, 09:46 PM: Message edited by: Sarge Saunders ]

IMO, both should be treated the same way. Neither one has any way of defending the VL if it is contested, so why should they be rewarded the VL?</font>

In the case of a shocked vehicle that can't fire maybe I could understand. But Pak40 mentioned a situation where a vehicle fires off ALL it's ammo. This could lead to serious gamey abuse. All I have to do to an enemy vehicle seeking to control a far VL is to keep it engaged and run it out of ammunition!? :confused: Doesn't seem right to me. -Sarge

Yes, I was going to mention this also. In my case, the objective was behind my lines about 200 meters. The 105mm FO had plenty of ammo and was prepared to sit in the top story of the objective building and call fire missions on anyone seeking to advance on his position. Why not award the FO control of the VL? [ December 07, 2002, 07:41 PM: Message edited by: Sarge Saunders ]

I noticed this also with a shocked halftrack. It could not hold the VL. This doesn't make much sense really. I could understand how people could be gamey by driving vehicles around to VLs in order to take control. But, as Pak40 says, if there are no enemy units nearby then a VL should be controled by ammoless/shocked vehicles IMHO. -Sarge

Many people are focusing on armor and I tend to agree with much of what is said. This discussion is beginning to look at infantry for both sides so I will move it along with my observations. Soviet infantry is cheap. One can easily by a battalion's worth of infantry in squads (18 squads) for 1200 points. Pioneer and recon companies give cheap manpower and usually one or two decent HQs. In most games I play, the soviet side ends up with a numerical advantage in infantry. I pad that by purchasing about 40% green infantry. Plenty of targets for the German player to worry about. Soviet infantry numerical advantage in CMBB QBs seems reasonable in light of historical facts but it does not always translate to tactical advantage. Non-SMG soviet squads have pitiful firepower. The more expensive german infantry has more firepower and is more flexible. I have accomplished more with a company of german panzergrenadier than I usually can with twice as many soviet troops. Firepower or not, having extra platoons to manuever as a soviet commander is still worth having in many cases. CM models the (unit) morale effect of enemy infantry being fired on by the cumulative firepower of multiple squads from multiple directions. There are many other things that can be said....I'll leave it here for now. Cheers, Sarge [ December 06, 2002, 09:04 AM: Message edited by: Sarge Saunders ]

Your arty won't help you Schultzie. Not against my vodka-dipped flaming Russians! Errr..... Chocolate-dipped flaming vodka screwdrivers..... Seriously, I have not had and "in-LOS" fire mission go off target yet but when I do, it would be nice to know what the official tactic should be. 1)Cancel fire mission, 2)Adjust fire mission, or 3)Do nothing. Has BFC given a straight answer? -Sarge

Ditto that request. -Sarge

Ditto that request. -Sarge

What you say is true based on my reading. The Russians would advance at specific points on the "Front" with massed mechanized corps. So on a CM level expect 2 or 3 to 1 Russian odds in infantry and maybe 6 to 1 in armor! That being said, I think the even combined arms matches get the levels about right. My 2 cents.... -Sarge

I myself attempted to take on a Tiger with one platoon of (5) Valentine IX tanks. I came close once or twice and did manage a side penetration but in the end, the valentine is far too sluggish with an underpowered engine to play cat & mouse with a Tiger. Best thing to do is marginalize the Tiger by ceding that area. Concentrate your forces away from and around the Tiger. Ignore it then force it to move to re-engage. Then, and only then, can you use your secret weapon. The Bogger Mark I. -Sarge

I am using this feature on a series of 20 turn QBs over the same map. The key is to conserve ammo. Also, purchase infantry that has more ammo to begin with. I find this to be a nice feature and love it! Ammo conservation is a very real problem facing frontline troops from time to time. This replicates it nicely IMO. -Sarge

Too easy for the Russians to win!

Ya know this very well could be a bug. And not just against bunkers. Someone ought to set up a test scenario and see what happens.

CM is not a real-life battlefield program. And the main reason is that YOU, the player, are the commander. This is just a way to utilize units to their maximum potential. I mean if this were "real", I could dismiss crappy platoon LTs and give command over to some +2 combat non-com. Or split the battalion HQ and send over the battalion exec to lead a company into battle. But they aren't. Connection lines are only influenced by experience level of the HQ and command bonuses. I'm sorry you feel that way. I can assure you that I have used this tactic to win against very, very good players. Yes we are positive. More men and more weapons. They do nothing else more than a coy HQ. Look, I didn't realize you had a bone to pick with CM's modelling of HQs. From your post title and such, it seemed you wanted advice on how best to utilize them as they are currently modelled. Trust me, everything I have stated (realistic or not) is a tried and tested CM battle tactic. Use it and win. Otherwise change this thread title to "why HQs are modelled incorrectly in CM". But I must warn you: this has been discussed many, many times before. -Sarge

jonp, see this thread: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=002805 I normally take plain vanilla platoon HQs and assign their squads to company HQs. Use the company HQ and added squads to help at the point of attack. The plain platoon HQ can then command support weapons that might normally be behind the fighting like MGs or mortars. Or you can assign him to that otherwise solo AT team. Also, even plain HQs scout very well since spotting and identification are better than squads. -Sarge

Man I love using company and battalion HQs. If you get lucky and have one with lots of double bonuses just attach several squads to it and use it as a vanguard force. Find any platoon HQs that aren't good and pull them away, assigning them to mortar spotting or to work with a machine gun team....maybe even a tank hunter team. Then give that platoons squads to the company or battalion HQ. coy/battalion HQs work well with scouts since they spot better and can actually help your scouts fight once they find the enemy. I have been known to take all +2 coy/battalion HQs and give them as many as 9 squads. They have to work in a tight formation so watch out for artillery. But such a force can be powerful. + 2 command bonus is critical for such a large formation though. Keep em forward, but safe. This all stems from a change in philosphies for me. I used to take my best HQs and squads and keep them back in reserve. Figuring that when the **** hits the fan I could send those guys in to help out. But now I have found that if these really good HQs are up front then reserves are not needed at all to help in those situations. Because the front line troops can handle adversity much better. Use those HQs up front where they can do the most good. -Sarge [ November 01, 2002, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: Sarge Saunders ]

Thanks Madmatt!

OK for all the doubters. Here are pics from a test scenario. LOS check FOW is off so this IS a truck The whipping starts: After 7 direct hits it dies: Is this realistic? Maybe. I just point out how odd it seems to me. I know it is just a 20mm gun but lets not forget that a "burst" is abstracted for every shot. That is an aweful lot of ordinance going into a mere truck to not even slow it down. ...off to dinner. -Sarge [ October 28, 2002, 06:17 PM: Message edited by: Sarge Saunders ]

I don't think you see crew quality with Extreme FOW. But I am sure this is a truck. Can't end this PBEM now...

Its a PBEM so I have the file. I dunno, I'm sure MadMatt has "truckloads" of e-mail to sort through so unless BFC speaks up and asks....I'll just show this here. I am sure this can be replicated. -Sarge

More pics....Notice the positive ID in the unit info. Truck not Truck? so I think it is for sure a truck. First shot this turn: Boom...Huh? Then second hit: It turns to move away so no death clock: This ought to be looked at my BFC methinks. An unlucky shot or two but why did the LOS tool give me kill: none? Could have been at least kill: rare.